Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In an op-ed for the Washington Post Charles Koch writes that he fundamentally agreed with Bernie Sanders that the system is rigged to the advantage of the wealthy. Where he disagrees with Sanders is how to remedy the problem. He believes that Government, and more specifically the money that government spends, is the vehicle that the wealthy use in order to expand their influence so more government will only exasperate the problem.
As a Bernie supporter I totally understand his point of view and would wonder how Bernie world respond. How does one remedy a problem by increasing the influence of the primary cause? It is a good question.
Excerpts from the op-ed:
" The senator is upset with a political and economic system that is often rigged to help the privileged few at the expense of everyone else, particularly the least advantaged. He believes that we have a two-tiered society that increasingly dooms millions of our fellow citizens to lives of poverty and hopelessness. He thinks many corporations seek and benefit from corporate welfare while ordinary citizens are denied opportunities and a level playing field.
I agree with him."
"Democrats and Republicans have too often favored policies and regulations that pick winners and losers. This helps perpetuate a cycle of control, dependency, cronyism and poverty in the United States. These are complicated issues, but it’s not enough to say that government alone is to blame. Large portions of the business community have actively pushed for these policies."
"I applaud the senator for giving a voice to many Americans struggling to get ahead in a system too often stacked in favor of the haves, but I disagree with his desire to expand the federal government’s control over people’s lives. This is what built so many barriers to opportunity in the first place.
In an op-ed for the Washington Post Charles Koch writes that he fundamentally agreed with Bernie Sanders that the system is rigged to the advantage of the wealthy. Where he disagrees with Sandra is how to remedy the problem. He believes that Government is the vehicle that the wealthy use in order to expand their influence so more government will only exasperate the problem.
Interesting, though, that he proposed no non-government solutions to that problem, but merely brought up government solutions for different problems entirely.
Koch wants a return to the big business agnosticism practiced by the federal government in the latter 1800s, when the states were progressive but the Supreme Court was packed with corporate lawyers.
Interesting, though, that he proposed no non-government solutions to that problem, but merely brought up government solutions for different problems entirely.
Koch wants a return to the big business agnosticism practiced by the federal government in the latter 1800s, when the states were progressive but the Supreme Court was packed with corporate lawyers.
The issue is, if you agree with Koch and Sanders that the game is rigged, how do you go about shrinking government so as to eliminate the inequality, while at the same time maintaining safety-nets and appropriate defense.
Industry and government are so closely linked now that one feeds the other while v ignoring the needs and rights of individuals. Enormous waste in expenditures, intrusion into civil rights, unequal treatment in the criminal justice system, are but a few distortions in our society caused by the wealthiest's use of government to its own advantage.
The issue is, if you agree with Koch and Sanders that the game is rigged, how do you go about shrinking government so as to eliminate the inequality, while at the same time maintaining safety-nets and appropriate defense.
Industry and government are so closely linked now that one feeds the other while v ignoring the needs and rights of individuals. Enormous waste in expenditures, intrusion into civil rights, unequal treatment in the criminal justice system, are but a few distortions in our society caused by the wealthiest's use of government to its own advantage.
Your first statement pre-supposes that "shrinking government" is the answer.
Your first statement pre-supposes that "shrinking government" is the answer.
The problem is that as government expands so does the power, wealth, and influence of the ultra-wealthy. As Koch suggests, power seeks money and government has become a massive source of money. More money simply feeds the power of the Plutocracy.
The problem is that as government expands so does the power, wealth, and influence of the ultra-wealthy. As Koch suggests, power seeks money and government has become a massive source of money. More money simply feeds the power of the Plutocracy.
The Koch Brothers also know, though, that they are now in a position of enormous power to remain just as powerful even in the absence of a moderating government influence, just as the corporate trusts were able to do so in the latter 1800s. They could destroy competition, rub out the "little man," dictate terms to their labor forces, obliterate the environment at their own will. Indeed, that state of affairs looks very good to the Koch brothers.
So for sure, they can say "shrink the government." That will only eliminate a potential thorn in their sides at this point.
The Koch Brothers also know, though, that they are now in a position of enormous power to remain just as powerful even in the absence of a moderating government influence, just as the corporate trusts were able to do so in the latter 1800s. They could destroy competition, rub out the "little man," dictate terms to their labor forces, obliterate the environment at their own will. Indeed, that state of affairs looks very good to the Koch brothers.
So for sure, they can say "shrink the government." That will only eliminate a potential thorn in their sides at this point.
The issue is not Koch's motivations. I have no idea. The issue is the Government-Industry complex which feeds each other. As one grows so does the other creating more and more concentration of power and wealth.
I think we need to realize the game will always favor the rich and the best thing is to emulate the rich as much as possible. If you got a 401K at least do not be so stupid as not to invest up to the point where your company stops contributing to your 401K. My company matches the first 3% and half the second 3% and I bet three quarters of the guys I work with do not put 6% in their 401K.
The wealthy get most of their wealth from capital gains.
It's hilarious that many of the statistics and data that he uses comes from Heritage Foundation and an anti-environmental libertarian think tank that he funds. That said, it's great that he think that corporate welfare is bad, but like most libertarians he has no answers to the problems beyond, "do away with government regulations." which is so broad a statement that it's meaningless.
Libertarian economic theories, if you can call them that, are more Pollyannish than anything a wide-eyed liberal could ever come up with. They assume that things will just work out because the market is somehow a Star Wars Force-like thing that will bring balance if it can, and ignores the rather unsavory past experiences with the laissez-faire approach.
It's hilarious that many of the statistics and data that he uses comes from Heritage Foundation and an anti-environmental libertarian think tank that he funds. That said, it's great that he think that corporate welfare is bad, but like most libertarians he has no answers to the problems beyond, "do away with government regulations." which is so broad a statement that it's meaningless.
Libertarian economic theories, if you can call them that, are more Pollyannish than anything a wide-eyed liberal could ever come up with. They assume that things will just work out because the market is somehow a Star Wars Force-like thing that will bring balance if it can, and ignores the rather unsavory past experiences with the laissez-faire approach.
Still this not address the fundamental question being raised. Is more government leading to greater concentration of wealth and power?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
