- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Koch Brothers - Are they really for smaller government?
Posted on 6/19/18 at 10:43 am
Posted on 6/19/18 at 10:43 am
Saw this article about their funded group, AFP, rallying against transit projects.
LINK
I can respect this, and somewhat agree.
Again... I'm pretty much in favor of this.
But wait...
So, they aren't REALLY for lower taxes and smaller government. They just want the tax money and government used for things that will financially benefit them.
Once again, so-called conservatives are busted. No one, regardless of party, with any money or influence, actually wants lower taxes and smaller government. They just want the milk to flow to them.
Now, Koch says that's not true...
Does anyone believe the people with the cash aren't dictating the policy of the organization?
LINK
quote:
In cities and counties across the country — including Little Rock, Ark.; Phoenix, Ariz.; southeast Michigan; central Utah; and here in Tennessee — the Koch brothers are fueling a fight against public transit, an offshoot of their longstanding national crusade for lower taxes and smaller government.
I can respect this, and somewhat agree.
quote:
Most American cities do not have the population density to support mass transit, the group says. It also asserts that transit brings unwanted gentrification to some areas, while failing to reach others altogether. Public transit, Americans for Prosperity says, goes against the liberties that Americans hold dear. “If someone has the freedom to go where they want, do what they want,” Ms. Venable said, “they’re not going to choose public transit.”
Again... I'm pretty much in favor of this.
But wait...
quote:
The Kochs’ opposition to transit spending stems from their longstanding free-market, libertarian philosophy. It also dovetails with their financial interests, which benefit from automobiles and highways. One of the mainstay companies of Koch Industries, the Kochs’ conglomerate, is a major producer of gasoline and asphalt, and also makes seatbelts, tires and other automotive parts. Even as Americans for Prosperity opposes public investment in transit, it supports spending tax money on highways and roads.
So, they aren't REALLY for lower taxes and smaller government. They just want the tax money and government used for things that will financially benefit them.
Once again, so-called conservatives are busted. No one, regardless of party, with any money or influence, actually wants lower taxes and smaller government. They just want the milk to flow to them.
Now, Koch says that's not true...
quote:
David Dziok, a Koch Industries spokesman, said the company did not control the activities of Americans for Prosperity in specific states and denied that the group’s anti-transit effort was linked to the company’s interests. That notion “runs counter to everything we stand for as a company,” he said.
Does anyone believe the people with the cash aren't dictating the policy of the organization?
16
Posted on 6/19/18 at 10:44 am to LSUFanHouston
quote:
Are they really for smaller government
Yes
Posted on 6/19/18 at 10:46 am to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
Yes
How can you say that when they want tax money spent on road projects?
Posted on 6/19/18 at 10:46 am to LSUFanHouston
They're protesting transit projects because more often than not, they're a massive waste of tax dollars that siphon money from highway funds which should be going to maintaining and widening highways and bridges.
For example, the ones around Baton Rouge:
$300 million for a BR/NOLA commuter train on tracks that already exist. The only reason for the vast majority of that is the cost to replace a large section of track that is so dilapidated that it has one of the lowest speed limits of any railway in America. The whole thing was crated as a way to get taxpayers to pay for replacing the 80 year old trellis bridge rather than the railroad company having to fit the bill.
A tram was seen as a good idea for connecting LSU to downtown BR because it wouldn't be stuck in the same travel lanes as cars, would run late at night to service the drunks, and would help connect Tiger Stadium and Alex Box to the new downtown hotels. The cost of the 10 mile track was estimated to be around $50 million. However, the next round of designs put the tram in the travel lanes and the group which would be charged with running the tram declared that it would neither run late at night nor on LSU game days.
This is the kind of straight up waste that AFP is fighting.
For example, the ones around Baton Rouge:
$300 million for a BR/NOLA commuter train on tracks that already exist. The only reason for the vast majority of that is the cost to replace a large section of track that is so dilapidated that it has one of the lowest speed limits of any railway in America. The whole thing was crated as a way to get taxpayers to pay for replacing the 80 year old trellis bridge rather than the railroad company having to fit the bill.
A tram was seen as a good idea for connecting LSU to downtown BR because it wouldn't be stuck in the same travel lanes as cars, would run late at night to service the drunks, and would help connect Tiger Stadium and Alex Box to the new downtown hotels. The cost of the 10 mile track was estimated to be around $50 million. However, the next round of designs put the tram in the travel lanes and the group which would be charged with running the tram declared that it would neither run late at night nor on LSU game days.
This is the kind of straight up waste that AFP is fighting.
This post was edited on 6/19/18 at 10:53 am
Posted on 6/19/18 at 10:48 am to LSUFanHouston
quote:
Are they really for smaller government?
Mostly, but recent years past has shown some doubt, maybe not in the philosophy, but the means at which they get there
Posted on 6/19/18 at 10:49 am to LSUFanHouston
quote:Is this wrong:
So, they aren't REALLY for lower taxes and smaller government. They just want the tax money and government used for things that will financially benefit them.
quote:Wouldnt this be true of our nation’s transportation and logistical issues regardless if we were using gas or some other form? And at least roads are, at least supposed to, get much of their funding from the gas tax so it’s at least theoretically a consumption tax for government spending on things related to the consumption.
Prosperity opposes public investment in transit, it supports spending tax money on highways and roads.
Posted on 6/19/18 at 10:51 am to LSUFanHouston
quote:
How can you say that when they want tax money spent on road projects?
Road projects benefit everyone and aren't a huge financial black hole.
They're also for ending the war on drugs, CJ reform, etc. are you suggesting this will benefit them financially?
Posted on 6/19/18 at 10:51 am to LSUFanHouston
quote:
How can you say that when they want tax money spent on road projects?
That tax money has to go to roads...if you open up a transit, then you have roads AND transit...
People need to rethink cities if they really want to end cars, traffic, streets, parking, etc
Posted on 6/19/18 at 10:51 am to LSUFanHouston
They want to use the gears of government to enrich themselves. This is not unusual by any means. But it would be naive to view their actions otherwise.
Posted on 6/19/18 at 10:52 am to TBoy
quote:
But it would be naive to view their actions otherwise.
How do they benefit from CJ reform?
Posted on 6/19/18 at 10:52 am to LSUFanHouston
He Koch's have supported causes that are against their financial interests as well. They are consistent in their small govt beliefs. Whether it is financially beneficial or detrimental. You know this. The author knows this. What a silly hit piece.
Posted on 6/19/18 at 10:54 am to LSUFanHouston
All public transit does is allow poor people to rob rich neighborhoods. It should be illegal
Posted on 6/19/18 at 10:54 am to BBONDS25
quote:
He Koch's have supported causes that are against their financial interests as well.
They're consistent with their policy positions. Picking one out and trying to disprove the ideology is retarded.
But that's the world we live in
Posted on 6/19/18 at 10:55 am to TBoy
quote:
They want to use the gears of government to enrich themselves. This is not unusual by any means. But it would be naive to view their actions otherwise
There is quite a bit of evidence to the contrary. I'm amazed how you are consistently ignorant, yet feel confident calling others naive or uninformed.
Since I noticed your screen name you have been completely ignorant regarding how trusts and foundations work...yet claimed to be an expert because you sit on a board. You claimed another poster was completely uninformed because he called Obamacare a tax (clearly you were ignorant of the Supreme Court ruling....which wasn't a secret).
Now this. You are a good representation of the average democrat. Ignorant, yet have an over inflated sense of your own knowledge and call out others from your place of ignorance.
This post was edited on 6/19/18 at 10:58 am
Posted on 6/19/18 at 10:56 am to LSUFanHouston
Don't be naive.
Everybody is always going to look out for their own best interest. Conservative, liberal, Democrat or Republican.
Those that have the ability are always going to use government influence to look out for thier best interests. And always have. You know what the best way is to prevent that from happening?
Reduce the ability of government to influence. In other words, smaller government. This doesn't take any large leap in logic.
Which political philosophy at least talks about smaller government? Which political philosophy openly endorses larger government? Now which philosophy you think would be more successful in reducing crony capitalism, regulatory capture and lobbyists influence?
Everybody is always going to look out for their own best interest. Conservative, liberal, Democrat or Republican.
Those that have the ability are always going to use government influence to look out for thier best interests. And always have. You know what the best way is to prevent that from happening?
Reduce the ability of government to influence. In other words, smaller government. This doesn't take any large leap in logic.
Which political philosophy at least talks about smaller government? Which political philosophy openly endorses larger government? Now which philosophy you think would be more successful in reducing crony capitalism, regulatory capture and lobbyists influence?
This post was edited on 6/19/18 at 10:59 am
Posted on 6/19/18 at 10:57 am to LSUFanHouston
quote:Explain how you think this is a rebuttal
How can you say that when they want tax money spent on road projects?
Posted on 6/19/18 at 10:58 am to LSUFanHouston
They are not.
They are for unfettered open borders.
They are for unfettered open borders.
Posted on 6/19/18 at 10:58 am to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
They're consistent with their policy positions. Picking one out and trying to disprove the ideology is retarded.
But that's the world we live in
Exactly.
I mean. Using that fricking retarded approach, EVERY rich person is included.
Posted on 6/19/18 at 10:58 am to TBoy
quote:If you looked at the charitable causes of the Koch brothers, you would probably find that they look a lot closer to the left than they do the right.
They want to use the gears of government to enrich themselves. This is not unusual by any means. But it would be naive to view their actions otherwise.
And they have been consistent in their principles, which is something we should all at least respect given that political problems often stem from hypocrisy.
This post was edited on 6/19/18 at 11:00 am
Posted on 6/19/18 at 11:04 am to ShortyRob
quote:They also give a ton of money to museums, arts, and public radio/television, many of which have at least some taxpayer funding.
I mean. Using that fricking retarded approach, EVERY rich person is included.
Does that mean they support that funding? Maybe. But it definitely means they support the value and purpose of these causes, irrespective of public funding.
And in terms of the spectrum of no government to totalitarian government, support for road infrastructure spending and public radio is a far cry crime draconian criminal laws and policies.
This post was edited on 6/19/18 at 11:06 am
Page 1 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News