NYT OPED: The Billionaires Bankrolling the Tea Party

[Burgold]

Please... I've never known a major donor who didn't want a sayso, have you? Do you think lobbiests give money so politicians can act in their best conscience?

[AsburySkinsFan]

Please... I've never known a major donor who didn't want a sayso, have you? Do you think lobbyists give money so politicians can act in their best conscience?

Shhhh...you're ruining the narrative.

[Thiebear]

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/08/30/100830fa_fact_mayer

Here ya go, some material for you to read...or not.

I posted that yesterday about the Koch brother while arguing with you in another thread (you apparently didn't read it) . I believe 1 of them has been 'shuned'?

There are a couple of HIGH profile Teaparties that were bought and paid for. There are another 100 that are not..

I asked you about the Georgia 3. Please try an cooperate with this discussion so its not so one sided in effort.

[AsburySkinsFan]

I posted that yesterday about the Koch brother while arguing with you in another thread (you apparently didn't read it) . I believe 1 of them has been 'shuned'?

There are a couple of HIGH profile Teaparties that were bought and paid for. There are another 100 that are not..

So the highest profile events are funded by them yeah they have no say what-so-ever.

I asked you about the Georgia 3. Please try an cooperate with this discussion so its not so one sided in effort.

If you have a point please get to it, I'm not going to play your games.

You want to be cozy with an organization that has these guys behind it then that's your business, but don't ask us to pretend that the whole thing is on the up and up.

[Smoot Point Really]

Or unions?

If the union is supporting union causes... Often they support political causes detrimental to labor... Green economy... Amnesty... Can probably think of others. There is nothing scary about the words union or corporations... Only when they make decisions that go against their own profitability and rely on Government controls to maintain their market position.

Giving their own money to influence the political process isn't bad... The favors in return can bad.

[twa]

You want to be cozy with an organization that has these guys behind it then that's your business, but don't ask us to pretend that the whole thing is on the up and up.

Clearly Satan's spawn

http://volokh.com/2010/08/30/brouhaha-over-the-koch-brothers/

despite the ominous overtones of the Mayer piece let’s put things in perspective. According to Mayer, the Kochs have spent “more than a hundred million dollars” on “right-wing” foundations since 1980. Let’s be aggressive, and assume arguendo the figure, adjusted for inflation, is four hundred million dollars. That’s a whole $13 million or so a year since 1980. By contrast, the Ford Foundation, one of many well-endowed “mainstream” liberal foundations, spends over $500 million a year, a decent fraction of which goes to left-wing organizations and causes. Any given major American university employs far more liberal academics in the social sciences annually than can possibly be employed on a $13 million budget. Soros’ Open Society Institute annually spends over $150 million to “support individuals and organizations advancing a more open, just, and equal society in the United States.”

Meanwhile, David Koch, one of the brothers in question, has recently given one hundred million dollars to Lincoln Center, 2.5 million dollars to New York City ballet, more than forty million dollars to Sloan Kettering, fifteen million dollars to New York-Presbyterian Hospital, a hundred and twenty-five million to M.I.T. for cancer research, twenty million to Johns Hopkins University, and twenty-five million to the M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, in Houston.

So, in the scheme of things, the Kochs spend relatively little money on libertarian causes.

[@DCGoldPants]

I wonder if Alwaleed bin Talal gives to the Tea Party, or just mostly terrorist causes.

[AsburySkinsFan]

So, in the scheme of things, the Kochs spend relatively little money on libertarian causes.

You can do the comparative thing if you wish, but the reality is that they spend a great deal of money on the Tea Party.

Sorry, but I'm not drinking the koo...err tea.

[Zguy28]

You can do the comparative thing if you wish, but the reality is that they spend a great deal of money on the Tea Party.

Sorry, but I'm not drinking the koo...err tea.

Yes, but do you drink pink lemonade?

[twa]

You can do the comparative thing if you wish, but the reality is that they spend a great deal of money on the Tea Party.

Sorry, but I'm not drinking the koo...err tea.

And the evil in that is?

My post was directed at your claim the organizations receiving the funds were to be suspect....do you extend that to the other recipients I listed?

[alexey]

And the evil in that is?

My post was directed at your claim the organizations receiving the funds were to be suspect....do you extend that to the other recipients I listed?

The troubling side of all this, at least for me is this:

Super rich people using their resources to facilitate a grassroots movement with the goal of furthering their individual well being to the detriment of the public good.

It starts with a seemingly good set of values - less government, less taxes. Then less government becomes less environmental regulations, turning pollution into profit. Less taxes becomes tax breaks for the ultra rich with larger deficits and no detectable benefit to the economic growth. Stuff like that is very troubling to me.

[Kilmer17]

The troubling side of all this, at least for me is this:

Super rich people using their resources to facilitate a grassroots movement with the goal of furthering their individual well being to the detriment of the public good.

It starts with a seemingly good set of values - less government, less taxes. Then less government becomes less environmental regulations, turning pollution into profit. Less taxes becomes tax breaks for the ultra rich with larger deficits and no detectable benefit to the economic growth. Stuff like that is very troubling to me.

George Soros doesnt agree with you.

[alexey]

George Soros doesnt agree with you.

What is his position?

Does he think that it's okay to use personal resources to promote own well being to the detriment of the public good?

[Burgold]

George Soros doesnt agree with you.

Yah, but do you believe him?

[twa]

It starts with a seemingly good set of values - less government, less taxes. Then less government becomes less environmental regulations, turning pollution into profit. Less taxes becomes tax breaks for the ultra rich with larger deficits and no detectable benefit to the economic growth. Stuff like that is very troubling to me.

What about the opposite of onerous environmental regs,taxing excessively, tax breaks for yourself ect?

Let the rich pay

[Thiebear]

So the highest profile events are funded by them yeah they have no say what-so-ever.

If you have a point please get to it, I'm not going to play your games.

You want to be cozy with an organization that has these guys behind it then that's your business, but don't ask us to pretend that the whole thing is on the up and up.

You Stated the tea party is bought and paid for.

I asked you to clarify this by pointing out the three in Georgia (who is funding them)

You then stopped the conversation and started giving 1 sentence random quote/questions.

[Kilmer17]

What is his position?

Also, does he try to promote his personal well being to the detriment of the public good?

In my view of "the public good"- ABSOLUTELY. Im certain others will disagree.

[alexey]

What about the opposite of onerous environmental regs,taxing excessively, tax breaks for yourself ect?

Let the rich pay

I think that regulations should be simple and reasonable, that government should provide easy to follow guidance, as well as ensure fairness and compliance.

Having said that, I would prefer to act on the side of caution when it comes to the environment.

And you probably know my position on oil fat cats bankrolling global warming denial :mad:

[alexey]

In my view of "the public good"- ABSOLUTELY. Im certain others will disagree.

I don't know enough about Soros to discuss this, and I don't want to side track this discussion by asking you to provide examples of him using his resources to further his well being to the detriment of the public good.

(as a side note, you may be talking about him furthering his political agenda, while I am talking mostly about financial interests)

[Kilmer17]

fair enough. another thread sometime.

[Baculus]

In my view of "the public good"- ABSOLUTELY. Im certain others will disagree.

Soros is credited to expanding Democracy in other nations, especially in Eastern Europe during the Cold War. Thus, he already has demonstrated positive change for the public good. Also, why don't you name the organizations that you believe are a determent to the public good? Please tell us specifics.

[Baculus]

Baculus, did Ron Paul support McCain-Feingold? We're talking about private donations to influence people... Not money directed at politicians for favors.

Ron Paul thought that McCain-Feingold adversely affected the free speech of citizens, so he was opposed to it.

[Baculus]

It is a liberal concern because only a modern liberal would be concerned about someone using their own money to influence policy... Corporate shareholders shouldn't be allowed to put their own "skin in the game"?

Totally untrue. Otherwise, why would George Soros and other left-wing or liberal individuals and organizations become targets of the Right? Why else would Glenn Beck spend time on his chalkboard making wild connections between groups, individuals, and money flow? Reality, and this thread (since Soros has been brought up in the discussion), defies your assertions.

But, no, I believe organizations should have a limit to "putting their own skin in the game." You seem to be totally unaware, or uncaring, to the damage, both in real term and in potential, that power aggregations and monopolies can have on our Democracy.

You really, really need to watch a movie called "The Corporation."

[Smoot Point Really]

I explained my thoughts on Soros already... He makes money when currencies fluctuate... He gains directly from having Government influence in the market. He is sketchy.

[alexey]

I explained my thoughts on Soros already... He makes money when currencies fluctuate... He gains directly from having Government influence in the market. He is sketchy.

Does he do stuff to influence the market and benefit from it? Dots are a bit easier to connect with oil billionaires putting resources towards lower taxes and less regulation.