Maybe we're envious. I gotta admit...If I were really rich, I'd do the same as the Koch Brothers

[Armstead]

A thought struck me after reading yet another article about how sophisticated and effective the Koch Brothers (and their peers in the Right Wing Millionaire Activist Club) are at getting their way and steering the national dialogue and policies in their direction.

If I had a gazillion dollars-- or even an extra billion or million or two -- I'd be doing the same things they are doing. I'd fund think tanks and lobbying groups, and create or support "grassroots" organizations like the Tea Party that advance my agenda. I'd buy air time to sponsor issue-ads and I'd give money to candidates who shared my views....Maybe I'd invest in a cable network that expressed propaganda.

Of course, my goals would be totally different. I'd be pouring my slush fund into the hoppers of people like Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren. I'd be lobbying for a raise in the minimum wage, a return to regulation of big corporations and the financial markets, support state politicians who want extend voting rights, fund progressive populist think tanks and movements like Occupy...etc.

I'm not wealthy. Just scraping by, barely. And too few of the people who have Big Resources share those views. Some do, but not nearly enough.

So I gotta admit. I'm envious of the right wing. They have a lot of Sugar Daddies (and Mommas). And they're getting the things they espouse, while the progressive side of the spectrum is getting its clock cleaned.

All we have is millions of people, most of whom are struggling to get by. Yes, we try to mobilize that and (like me) give a little bit when we can afford it. (yes I'll have a paid-up star on DU again once I get my own finances cleared up enough.)

But it would be a biog help if there were more truly progressive rich folks who were willing to ante up big bucks to advance a liberal populist agenda.

The sad thing is that human nature is such that we tend to support what is in our self interest. The Kochs have an obvious stake in shrinking government so it won't pester their enterprises. And keeping people ignorant and desperate so they can exploit consumers and workers.

But maybe, someday, enough people with money and clout will see that the Public Interest is also in their own self interest. That would be one way to level the playing field.

[leftyohiolib]

1. well the problem with the cock brothers is their intentions are self-serving evil greed

i wouldnt do the same thing. i believe we ,as the very rich, would throw money around to get more kids into head start, create a society that caters to most not just to what i want, a clean environment, raise the tide so that all boats are lifted. that isnt what those cock brothers are doing. they want an unregulated hell hole they from which they can steal

[Armstead]

4. Thats what I said

The rich s'heads are the ones who are involved and committed.

[Xipe Totec]

2. That doesn't bother me; I understand the motivation

It's the other idiots that don't have the money the Koch brothers have, and never will, and vote against their own self interests. Those are the stupid fucks that drive me up the wall.

[Armstead]

6. Unfortunately, the Koch money helps to convince those who vote against their own interests

[Xipe Totec]

9. Didn't work on me for some reason.

Maybe education is key?

[ProSense]

3. Well,

If I had a gazillion dollars-- or even an extra billion or million or two -- I'd be doing the same things they are doing. I'd fund think tanks and lobbying groups, and create or support "grassroots" organizations like the Tea Party that advance my agenda. I'd buy air time to sponsor issue-ads and I'd give money to candidates who shared my views....Maybe I'd invest in a cable network that expressed propaganda.

Of course, my goals would be totally different. I'd be pouring my slush fund into the hoppers of people like Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren. I'd be lobbying for a raise in the minimum wage, a return to regulation of big corporations and the financial markets, support state politicians who want extend voting rights, fund progressive populist think tanks and movements like Occupy...etc.

I'm not wealthy. Just scraping by, barely. And too few of the people who have Big Resources share those views. Some do, but not nearly enough.

So I gotta admit. I'm envious of the right wing. They have a lot of Sugar Daddies (and Mommas). And they're getting the things they espouse, while the progressive side of the spectrum is getting its clock cleaned.

...now that you've established that this is something to "enny," maybe you should just accept that all the wealthy people who are not the Koch brothers or the RW are doing just that. The thing is you don't get to chose how they spend their money, but you have to accept it because it's something you say you "envy." You'd do the "same" thing, putting your money where you want it.

Do you support keeping Citizens United?

Citizens United

Four years ago today the Supreme Court gutted campaign finance laws and lifted limits on corporate campaign cash. On Jan. 21, 2010, Sen. Bernie Sanders predicted that the ruling would “give control of the political process in the United States to the wealthiest and most powerful institutions in the world and the candidates who support their agenda. Instead of democracy being about one-person one-vote, it will now be about the size of a company’s bank account.”

The 5-to-4 decision in Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission led to rulings that let wealthy individuals like the billionaires Charles and David Koch pour unlimited and unregulated sums into campaign coffers.

Sanders has offered a constitutional amendment that would undo the decision. Vermont, 15 other states and some 500 local governments have passed resolutions denouncing the Citizens United ruling.

But the issue is before the court again this term. A ruling is expected by June in McCutcheon vs. FEC, a case that could make matters even worse. Sanders sat in on the oral arguments last Oct. 8. “Freedom of speech, in my view, does not mean the freedom to buy the United States government,” Sanders told a rally outside the court afterward.

Sanders also hosted a forum last fall with People for the American Way President Michael Keegan, Public Citizen President Rob Weissman, The Nation’s John Nichols and Tia Lessen, the documentary filmmaker whose “Citizen Koch” exposed how vast fortunes have been tapped to influence American elections.

<...>

http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/recent-business/citizens-united-01-21-2014

[Armstead]

5. Obviously I don't support Citizens United

In an ideal world, wealth would not equal influence.

But in the real world we are stuck with, money talks. And I'd rather see more money speaking the language of progressives.

[ProSense]

8. Not me,

"And I'd rather see more money speaking the language of progressives. "

...I'd take "money" out of the equation so that millions more Americans can be the voice of "progressives"

[hfojvt]

7. well seeing as how I am a Koch brother

One other advantage of the right wing, is that if we were wingers we might be able to get a nice writing gig paying $40,000 a year.

Envy is not the point though. The point is this

http://www.koch2congress.com/5.html

The rich using their riches to increase their riches.

Or, as I put it another way. http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021222445

"The Bush tax cuts cost $424 billion in 2011, $108 billion of that went to the richest 1% and $163 billion to the top 5% and another $107 billion to the rest of the top 20%.

The rich would LOVE for those tax cuts to be permanent. They are prepared to spend several billion on campaigns and candidates in order to make that happen. Time magazine did a cover saying "Presidency for sale: asking $2.5 billion". Spending $2.5 billion to keep $108 billion in tax cuts is a very good return on investment. Looks like over $105 billion in profit to me."

As it turns out, even though Romney lost, the rich STILL got to keep most of their tax cuts. The richest 1% will get about $600 billion in tax cuts over the next decade thanks to ATRA, passed by Democratic votes and signed by Obama. The richest 5% will get $1.3 trillion.

They use their influence to get more money for themselves at the expense of those much less fortunate. Instead of having $1.3 trillion to increase services or invest in infrastructure or even pay down the debt, that $1.3 trillion goes to the richest 5%. Meanwhile their stooges keep filling the airwaves ("public opinion, Taylor made" as they said in "Mr. Smith goes to Washington&quot with talk about how we need to cut spending on the poor and entitlements in order to reduce the debt.

Unfortunately, they control the M$M and both major political parties, with a few notable exceptions.

[byronius]

10. I get what you mean. Inherited wealth, though, tends to make people incompetent and sinister.

Which is what afflicts the Kochs, Trump, etc. I'm not sure if you inherited these vast sums if you would at all be the same person. Earned wealth is a different story, like Buffet or Bloomberg.

There are a few generational-wealth stories that I find inspiring -- the main one was a guy in the sixties, can't remember his name, who inherited a vast publishing fortune and used it to fund the hippies. Haight-Ashbury and most of the bands of that era and socially-conscious artists all benefited from his largesse. I'll have to look him up. I read an article about him in an old copy of the Evergreen Review.

[Armstead]

15. Yeah, it should, be just the opposite

One would think that those who inherit would be grateful and want to give back.

Despite their flaws, the Kennedys seemed to have the ethic of public service.

[OldEurope]

11. No, I would not.

What is the purpose of owning billions that you are not spending to anything? How miserable is a person who obviously can't find something important except hoarding numbers? It's an addiction, I think, and there is a reason why greed is considered a deadly sin.

I also don't think that selfishness is a natural behaviour of humans. Humans had to be cooperative, or else they could not survive in the beginning.

[PowerToThePeople]

12. If you were that rich, you would not be you. n/t

[Armstead]

16. I'd sure like to give it a try

I like to think that if I had been born into a wealthy family, or gotten lucky in my profession, I'd have similar values. I'm not sure its in my genetic makeup to be as shitty as the Kochs.

But that's not been in the cards. So all I can do is fantasize about my wealth and philanthropy.

Rats.

[kelliekat44]

13. Hmmmm...if If I had their money a lot of people would have a lot less pressure on them. nt

[cascadiance]

14. And the problem is the rest of us are swallowing their koolaid...

[Armstead]

18. That's fer sure

Because they have been fooled into believing that they too might get rich, and thus have to protect the interests of the rich.

[PeteSelman]

17. I'd be too busy enjoying everything to be bothered with any of it.

I'd be spending an awful lot of time drunk at Disney World, hiring my favorite bands to play for me and just enjoying the living hell out of life.

I certainly wouldn't be spending time trying to ruin other people's lives as the Koch assholes do.

[Armstead]

19. That too...I'd leave a couple of million aside for seciurity and having a good time

But, and not being Poillyanna, I think it would be fun to do good things for others with a lot of the money.

[randome]

20. No, you wouldn't.

Human nature comes into it, of course. But so does personal experience.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"There is a crack in everything. That's how the light gets in."
Leonard Cohen, Anthem (1992)[/center][/font][hr]

[Armstead]

22. I would, but different than them

I'm not a saint or anything. I'd live well too.

But after the first million dollars or so for personal income, all the rest is gravy. It'd make me feel better spend it on things I believe in, so I wouldn't mind spending it.

[Lady Freedom Returns]

21. How true!

The right has Wall Street, anyone that has a large sum of money really. They are even starting to take over film and music, at one time seen as Liberal heavy supporters.

We need to level the field again.