If the KOCH brothers had only their two VOTES, how different might our world be?

Last edited Sun Jun 25, 2017, 03:01 PM - Edit history (1)

Isn't it laughable to picture that the only influence they could have would be the same as the rest of us, to cast this own ballot in privacy of voting booth?

And I suppose their own human voices, talking to their friends?

But since money is speech, they have banded together with "HUNDREDS" of others, EACH one committing to make a $100,000 per year donation to the Koch Brothers political action committee, they certainly have far more control than a couple of votes.

My guess is that Trump will get removed, but Pence will not get removed at the same time as Trump. Because that's what the Koch PAC would want.

.................."The comments came on the first day of a three-day private donor retreat at a luxury resort
..................in the Rocky Mountains. Invitations were extended only to donors who promise to give
...................at least $100,000 each year to the various groups backed by the Koch brothers'
...................Freedom Partners — a network of education, policy and political entities that aim
...................to promote small government.

..................."When I look at where we are at the size and effectiveness of this network, I'm blown
...................away," billionaire industrialist Charles Koch told hundreds of donors during an outdoor
...................evening reception. His brother, David Koch, looked on from the crowd along with
...................Sens. Mike Lee of Utah and Jeff Flake of Arizona.

..................."We've got to keep doing it at an accelerated pace," Charles Koch said.

..................No outside group has been move aggressive over the years long push to repeal Obama's
...................health care law than the Kochs', who vowed on Saturday to spend another 10 years
...................fighting to change the health care system if necessary. The Koch network has often
...................displayed a willingness to take on Republicans — including President Donald Trump —
...................when their policies aren't deemed conservative enough."

Another DUer posted a thread about the Powell memo of 1971, which encouraged business interest and conservative ideologues to invest in a concerted effort to shape public attitudes. "The memo influenced or inspired the creation of the Heritage Foundation, the Manhattan Institute, the Cato Institute, Citizens for a Sound Economy, Accuracy in Academe" and others.

Citizens United put this effort on steroids.

Rather than simply hating on their ideas (which I certainly do), we ought to also dwell on them a bit. The public -- OUR public -- has been taught that big government is the great evil. Take this idea, consider it, and turn it against these would-be plutocracy. The linked-in-arms Koch brothers and their allies (corporate leaders, billionaires, and beholden politicians) have effectively become the owners of the big government that they persuaded the masses to hate.

The idea that the Koch brothers and their like hold dearest is that THEIR CONCENTRATED WEALTH IS THE DIRECT RESULT OF THEIR OWN HARD WORK AMD TALENT, and that it is EVIL for the masses to want to use the force of the government to collect disproportionate taxes (or any taxes) from the wealthy. But our current economic system is well-designed to concentrate wealth in fewer and fewer hands. As "productivity" increases, and as resources have become monopolized, as owners own more and workers are expendable, the workers will turn to selling themselves into a type of modern slavery. The education that freed some in the past will continue to advance some individuals, but the improvements in artificial intelligence and automation will dramatically reduce the numbers of jobs available for the 80%. The service industries that employ so many will decline, if the poor cannot afford nursing care and the middle class rarely eats out in restaurants or has the disposable income to support a diverse local economy.

The Koch hate the "entitlements". Indeed, the 1% has starved the gainfully-employed-but-not wealthy-50% so much that the 50% can barely meet their own needs, let alone contribute to upkeep of the bottom 40% who mostly have no hope. There's little fat left on the middle class, and none whatsoever on the working poor. Many turn against each other, resenting those who do not work, yet still require food and support and cell phones and medical care. It is not only through taxes but through underemployed or underpaid family members and friends that the middle and working class is drained and under pressure. The hatred that many working class have for the fact that some of their taxes are going to support nameless strangers is partly driven by the reality that their own friends and family are themselves struggling and needing help.

Through our individual economic choices, as well as political choices, the 90% continually give power to the 1%. How can the bottom 90% take back the equality of the vote? How divided up we are. Raising taxes on the wealthy only strengthened the intensity of their opposition to liberal government. We need to dismantle the power that they have over the minds of the 90%, and fully understand and address the nature of "entitlements", of money as free speech, of the root causes of the acquisition and concentration of wealth. There are elements of truth in what they say. To regain power, to become more democratic republic and less of a plutocracy, we need to focus on changes that reorganize the natural flows of wealth from the bottom up. Because today, with every purchase, we are feeding the machine that divides and conquers us.