Offline
So we think just all conservative businessmen are just about screwing the government out of their share of tax revenue by offshring inversions. Think again. Here is the story of John Carroll Jr who "invented" the whole scheme. And he basically is a big LIBERAL.
I post this so that we all can take a look at how we sometime classify people and ideas as liberal vs conservative. It is not always as easy as we think. I am reminded of that because of the recent article about one of the Koch brothers and his position on gay marriage (and he has some other liberal causes he supports also). Yes, the Koch's do much to promote their business interests. Most businessmen do. My big beef is only that we have now allowed so much of that monied interest to enter into the political arena without question, but that is ANOTHER STORY and topic.
Here is the article about John Caroll and his invention of the "corporate inversion" scheme to offshore corporate offices to avoild paying taxes here in the US.
Offline
Proof that anybody can be an a*#hole.
I just don't like the Koch's because they've treated people very badly to get where they are and what they have. I don't care what political persuasion they say they are. They could say they were the most liberal people on earth, and I still wouldn't like them because they lack honor.
Offline
BYOB wrote:
Proof that anybody can be an a*#hole.
I just don't like the Koch's because they've treated people very badly to get where they are and what they have. I don't care what political persuasion they say they are. They could say they were the most liberal people on earth, and I still wouldn't like them because they lack honor.
I look at it a little differently. I was in fact trying to make the point that we tend to sterotype people. In fact people are very complex indivuduals and in the case of Carroll although he created the tax inversion strategy, he himself was rather liberal. Do we look at let's say a Bill Gates in the same regards, or a Warren Buffett ? Would be an interesting question. Obviously both of these men have done things in the business world to purely benefit themselves and their corporate interests.
I admit I know very little facts about the Koch bros other than they are the constant villans of the liberals.
According to all I can gather, their basic philosophy can be broken down into a strong support for free-market and a reduction in “Big Government”. Their belief, and that of many libertarians, is that the free-market works better without Government intervention and that an emphasis should be placed on individual responsibility. Pure libertarians therefore all tend to hate and work against anything that is a government sponsored thing which would include then things like Obamacare, welfare, etc. and also would correspondingly be in favor or the government not interfering with personal things such as gay marriage, etc.
I can easily say I could never be a libertarian purist (or for than matter could I be a liberal purist or conservative purist).
Guess I am not pure !
Offline
Excellent point by Tennyson.
Too many people on both sides make up their mind about a story solely based upon who is involved. Hear a story about the Koch's and there must be something nefarious behind their motives, even when there is no evidence pointing towards it.
I think what Lager said in the thread about Hillary is something we should all do everytime a political story comes up. Substitute the name or party of the people involved with someone who is the complete opposite and be honest with yourself and see if you would react differently. That would be a good exercise for everyone to undertake when looking at a situation.
Offline
Ok, let us simply refer to these people as 'plutocrats'. That eliminates the need to attach them to a team so it doesn't cloud the issue of our government being bought and contolled by the uber-rich.
Offline
Just Fred wrote:
Ok, let us simply refer to these people as 'plutocrats'. That eliminates the need to attach them to a team so it doesn't cloud the issue of our government being bought and contolled by the uber-rich.
Insofar as many people use the term in different senses I also am not comfortable with that either. The term is usually used to condem the rich merely for being rich and associating things to wealth itself. I guess my question for you would be would you use the same term to classify a Bill Gates or Warren Buffett vs the oft quoted Koch brothers ?
And if not, why not ?
Offline
Perhaps we could replace labels and generalizations with the term "people",,,,
and then judge each by the content of his character, as revealed by his behavior, and not by his wealth or occupation.
Offline
Ahh, a textual smackdown. What if you judge them by the content of their character and you still come to the same conclusions?
Offline
BYOB wrote:
Ahh, a textual smackdown. What if you judge them by the content of their character and you still come to the same conclusions?
Well, Then you will have arrived at an opinion informed by experience and fact, rather than one based upon stereotype.
Offline
Insofar as many people use the term in different senses I also am not comfortable with that either. The term is usually used to condem the rich merely for being rich and associating things to wealth itself. I guess my question for you would be would you use the same term to classify a Bill Gates or Warren Buffett vs the oft quoted Koch brothers ?
And if not, why not ? - Tennyson
Ok, I surrender. Make up a term to describe someone(s) who uses their power and influence via the injection of huge wads of cash into government to promote their own special interests with little or no regard or empathy for those who may be hurt.
I've used the terms plutocrat, plutocracy, oligarch, and oligarchy quite alot since I sense our country is headed down that path involving those who would use their wealth to purchase elected officials, and thus the government.
Give me a better, more descriptive word or words and I'll use it.