John Birch Society are "Social Liberals" now?

not (publically) caring about social issues because "it's the fiscal, stupid!" makes him liberal (from the right's perspective) ... just like opposing the fiscal stuff, while ignoring the social stuff, makes one liberal (on DU).

Hadn't thought of it in those terms....interesting...

and supports the arts and sciences in NY City.
But then he hypocritically backs candidates that want to destroy those things so he can get a few more dollars.
Cause he just isn't rich enough.

His priorities are clear, money over any other societal need.

And that balanced budget stuff is so much bullshit, a look at the last 50 years show the Dems balance the budget and the Repukes bring deficits. What he means is he backs candidates that want spending AND tax cuts.

but i think I have seen his name.

Either way, the last part about a balanced budget is pure unadulterated horse crap.

Yep, him:

Koch is an influential libertarian conservative, having financed and run on the 1980 U.S. Libertarian Party presidential ticket and founded Citizens for a Sound Economy. Koch has contributed to several charities including Lincoln Center, Sloan Kettering, a fertility clinic at New York-Presbyterian Hospital and the American Museum of Natural History's David H. Koch Dinosaur Wing.[8] The New York State Theater at Lincoln Center, home of the New York City Ballet was renamed the David H. Koch Theater in 2008 following a gift of 100 million dollars for the renovation of the theater.

Fred is the eldest and went to Harvard instead of MIT. His occupation is listed as "collector," although it's a bit more than that. He would seem to be the one directing the Koch Foundation, which is the arm of the family that does most of the endowments to arts and humanities.

The other three went to MIT. David and William are twins. Charles and David kicked William out of the business, getting him to "sell his shares" after a long and massive legal battle. William, however, does seem to share the political perversions of his two brothers, and donated heavily to Mitt Romney in 2012. He also had the integrity to object when he caught them siphoning oil from Indian and Federal land.

Of the two, Charles and David, it would seem that Charles is the major string puller.

He ONLY supports candidates who are both those things, so he owns them.

He cannot say he's a social liberal if he does not act on it.

taxpayer-funded abortion on demand, as should anyone calling him- or herself a 'feminist' or 'Socialist.'

It's in Alex Gibney's movie Park Avenue.

He's a trust fund kid, who never has had to worry about how he was going to afford Christmas for his kids, or even if he didn't show up for work except when it suited him that he would get fired.

I know. I worked alongside daddy's kid who was getting trained in the business, who really thought they were pulling their weight in the workplace, but if the waves were up were gone surfing for the day, while we, the workers, picked up their duties.

It also almost every time that the person saying goes it will fold on "socially liberal" anytime it comes in conflict with "fiscally conservative".

And like the man says, it most succinctly means "I'm a big L Libertarian".

Now, I'm sure old David's truth is a bit closer to "I'm socially moderate to liberal socially but fiscally a radical regressive" while our friends that spew similar bullshit are saying "I'm socially moderate (which in present context seems to mean not a bigot) but fiscally conservative (hey, I'm not an anti tax, robberbaron lunatic like David over there I am just a Chicago business school, trickle down, austerian)" but the difference there is more of flavor than outlook that depending on how one weights issues might even be the same in the aggregate.

Must we put up with the fairy tale that they have any kind of consistent ideology other than "I want even more money and power and I don't care how many have to suffer to make that happen?"

What he wants is the financial system
rigged completely to benefit people like him.

in any stretch of one's imagination!

I don't get all the handwringing. If you're socially liberal and fiscally stupid, pardon me I meant conservative, then you're a libertarian, just like David Koch. You might be a limousine liberal if you occasionally make noises about inequality or the minimum wage, but you're still closer to him than to traditional Democratic liberalism.

he wouldn't finance candidates who actively oppose them. That's common sense, not handwringing.

Get mine: socially liberal Democrats who push right-wing economics are no different from David Koch. They may not support the candidates directly, but they can be relied upon to vote for the policies.

Social liberalism has been the litmus test of American liberalism for a very long time. If we're going to have a litmus test, let's have one for economic liberalism as well.

socially liberal Democrats who are as reactionary as David Koch economically. And don't just cherry pick issues either. You need the whole ball of wax. Otherwise, you're in the (admittedly fashionable around here) camp of both parties are the same, which is the trademark of someone who has the luxury of no rights at stake.

That's pretty funny. I guess if I cherry pick a gigantic issue, but there's 40 much smaller issues where they differ, then I'm just playing the "fashionable" game. Hilarious.

If you push a balanced federal budget, free trade, stronger IP laws, continued financialization of the economy by monetizing every damn last thing, and the continual consolidation of American industry, you're pretty damn close to David Koch. Sure, you might argue that there should be regulation and maybe a consumer protection law here and there, but the montrosity you built by supporting the above will wipe out whatever minor offerings you make.

Take the big banks as an example. With their current size, which I don't think is really understood, I'm confused how anyone thinks they can be regulated in their current form. Morgan alone has assets of $2T. They spent $16B on legal fees alone from 2009-2013. It's not that I don't think the federal lacks the ability to outspend them, it's that our politics lacks the will. The only reasonable response is to break them up and create a field of much smaller, much less powerful players. That can be regulated. As it is now, it's just kabuki theater to pretend there's meaningful bank regulation. If there was, I have to wonder how Jamie Dimon can forestall criminal charges against his bank with a call to the Attorney General.

By the way, I'm well aware there's no political will, at the top anyway, to break up those banks. Part of creating the will to do it is changing the language used to describe it. It gets much easier to imagine doing something when you're able to imagine it.

The elites don't care about them. They are used to divide us so that they can keep the system of wealth accumulation intact.

But whatever, to each his or her own.

nt

Since you couldn't be bothered to tell me what I think, I'll go ahead and return the favor. My best guess is that you're going to claim that "economic liberalism" is what is referred to in Europe as classical liberalism. If that guess is right, my response would be: cool, we're not in Europe, so I don't give a damn what they call it.

Just like most of the 1%, he doesn't care about those things. Social issues don't effect him or the people around him at all. Think his daughter would have any trouble getting an abortion even if it was totally banned? Think he really gives two shits about whether or not the Bible is taught in the peons' "public schools"?

As he said, he really only cares about the money issues. As long as the politicians structure the economy (and by extension, the whole society) to service his little class of robber barons, he doesn't care how they jockey for position on social issues.

be when financing the backward hateful asshats that are currently infecting our government?

all about the markets and budgets. This defense is widely accepted on DU when given by other more popular figures.
So is it a good argument, to say 'I am liberal but vote for right wing nuts if they agree with me about money stuff' or is that a bad argument?

the fact is Koch just doesn't care for those other issues about women, gays, minorities etc. it's not that he opposes or even supports them, it's more that he doesn't care.

he is willing to support candidates who oppose rights for those people so he can get wealthy himself.

First and foremost he is a greedy SOB.

Someone suggested that the media had as much or more influence as Koch's spending. Keith Ellison agreed and told them that they should interview one of the people protesting for $15hr to give it balance.

Gotta love him.

The plaugue that affects the democrats (and to a minor extent the GOP) is thet the pwer elites are socialy liberal, fiscally conservative, which is another way of saying they want someone to protect them from the Jeebus freaks, but otherwise want everything and anything exactly how they want it, and fuck everyone else.

have no skin in the game on issues like same-sex marriage, legal weed or reproductive rights and could not care less about them. Those issues are only used to stir up the cave-troll base.


They are concerned with two things only: Hoarding all the money in the world and having the Power to protect Their Money from the Teeming Millions of the soon to be utterly impoverished peasantry. Nothing else matters to them. Nothing.

In the 70s people used to fight "the man". The Koch Bros are the definition of "The Man".

although as Koch admits, he readily supports candidates who oppose abortion rights and gay marriage. Because balanced budgets and avoiding inflation are so much more important than the rights of women and LGBT Americans. Some "social liberal" he is!

He's a libertarian, which supposedly means he's a social liberal. BUT he is 100% opposed to abortion, he is opposed to same-sex marriage but adimts that it's too late to stop that, he's opposed to marijuana decriminalization. This is a new talking point they have but it means shit.

who don't want to admit to being republican or defend republicans.