Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: 6 Reasons the Koch Brothers Had a Very Bad Week

Posted 2 years ago on April 5, 2012, 11:36 a.m. EST by GirlFriday (17435)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

http://www.alternet.org/story/154795/6_reasons_the_koch_brothers_had_a_very_bad_week?page=entire

Not freaking bad enough, but I will take it. Have you guys seen the documentary?

74 Comments

74 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 4 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

Make that 7.

43 Wisconsin (R)epelican'ts just had ethics violations filed for accepting "gifts" from one of the brothers favorite charities...ALEC.

Unethical (R)epelican'ts? Only all the time.

[-] 4 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

It's just gettin' better and better!

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

I forgot the link.

http://www.bradblog.com/?p=9214

There should be more on this tomorrow.......:)

[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

Thanks for the link.

[-] -1 points by Dell (-168) 2 years ago

so the violations were filed or were they convicted already? What happened to Rep Charlie Rangel for his ethics violations?

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

Change subject much?

You should have read it. Violations were filed.

(R)epelican'ts can't win without cheating. It's their MO.

They are the penultimate crooks...............:)

[-] 0 points by Dell (-168) 2 years ago

yes - dems are not crooks - they are the honest virtuous ones - I forgot.

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

They are have been more honest than ANY (R)epelican't around.

They are not perfect, but the (R)epelican'ts have made a science of dishonesty, even among their backers.

The bag of lies that got Walker elected is prime example.

One only needs FLAKESnews as an example in recent times for ample proof, although there are many more.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by Dell (-168) 2 years ago

hahahahaha! your high "they are have been" what lies did walker tell? nothing tops "if you like your healthcare plan you can keep it" or the flip on his position on the mandate campaigning against it then signing it in to law. How can you possibly explain that?

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

Walker lies????

Have you been sleeping? Or just too lazy to look?

Here's 20.

http://boingboing.net/2011/03/06/20-lies-from-scott-w.html

The other? I already answered. You just ignored it and repeated yourself, expecting a different response.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by Dell (-168) 2 years ago

hahaha! your answer "I'm keeping mine" on healthcare is a joke of an answer. you never answered on the mandate flip flop. no matter it will be thrown out in a couple of months & you can start all over again.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

What you call a "flip flop" is really just politics as usual.

One would hope you're not that new to that.

Your incredulity to Walkers lies, is more telling.

http://bdgrdemocracy.wordpress.com/2011/06/25/the-big-five-lies-in-the-walker-budget-in-his-own-words/

http://markpocanwi.blogspot.com/2011/02/scott-walkers-top-ten-lies.html

[-] -1 points by Dell (-168) 2 years ago

"What you call a "flip flop" is really just politics as usual." oh - but I thought it was only the GOP that did that. Walker - ok so vote him out just like we are going to Obama for his lie on the mandate & lie about keeping your plan if you want to.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

I'm keeping my plan..........:)

[-] -1 points by Dell (-168) 2 years ago

see - it IS all about you lol! No different from the so called greedy 1%.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

I "earned" my plan by working over 30 years.

It's the (R)epelican'ts and insurance profiteers, who have created limitations to that plan.

[-] 0 points by Dell (-168) 2 years ago

but obama was supposed to be different - remember - hope & change lol!

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

You listen to too much Rush Limbaugh.

That being said, he IS much different than Bush, and I mean that in a good way.

[-] -1 points by Dell (-168) 2 years ago

Lets stay on point - "Everybody can keep there plan if they like it." Please explain this to me. how about the flip on the mandate? you are still ducking that one lol! Please explain this one to me.

[-] -1 points by Dell (-168) 2 years ago

that doesn't address the Presidents statement when campaigning that Everybody can keep there plan if they like it. He didnt say "some of you" can keep it lol! Please - your in over your head on this one. how about the flip on the mandate? you are still ducking that one lol!

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

You must be VERY new to politics.

Please name the candidate that once elected keeps 100% of campaign statements.

[-] 3 points by DKAtoday (26697) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Love-it - you do know how to brighten a day. I knew Wisconsin could be Key to blowing the lid off of a lot of the mess we are all in due to corruption and manipulation.

Let the light shine!

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

I agree. We are all watching Wisconsin. My state has been sold. They are going to be key to any chance that we have of taking any of our states back.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (26697) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

I pray for an awesome outpouring of support in the recall/replacement of Walker. I hope for it to become a true living inspiration for others to be removed or to get to work for the people.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

I need another hour before I can make my next post but it is on. I agree with you.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (26697) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Growth of awareness of issues and the awareness of being able to take action, it is a wonderful thing to see.

[-] -1 points by Centerrightcountry (16) 2 years ago

Yes, let's get back to the good old days when employees ran the government they worked for. Sounds like a winner for the citizens if there ever was one.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (26697) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Reclaim what was stolen. Our government. That is all that needs doing to start back towards health and prosperity for all. Sounds absurdly easy when put that way - doesn't it?

[-] -1 points by Centerrightcountry (16) 2 years ago

The stealing has been from citizens by unions. Health and prosperity for all? How does plowing more benefits into the select few that happen to work for, and control, government accomplish any of that? Their health and prosperity is paid for by the citizens and increasingly is crowding out the stuff liberals used to like about what government does. Now liberals just like to pad the staff. Why? Beats me.

[-] 2 points by rayl (1007) 2 years ago

the unions are a sideshow compared to what has been GIVEN to wall street. wake up little buddy!

[-] -1 points by Centerrightcountry (16) 2 years ago

But the Wall Street bailout has been mostly paid back, and with a profit. Sorry that doesn't fit your propaganda. Now, spend a little time looking at the national pension scandal brought to us all by public unions.

From the "bailout", the biggest bailout was what GOVERNMENT DID, not Wall Street. The biggest losers of all are Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government's housing pimps. The UAW bailout at GM and Chrysler were also taxpayer losers. Goldman, Morgan Stanley, JP Morgan? All profitable and fully repaid. Sorry, just facts.

http://projects.propublica.org/bailout/main/summary

[-] 2 points by rayl (1007) 2 years ago

approx. 25 billion for the auto industry (gm, chrysler and gmac ) is a bit less than the 264 billion which is still outstanding that was lent to the finance industry. couldn't find any data on a uaw bailout... sorry, just the facts

[-] 0 points by Centerrightcountry (16) 2 years ago

Check your facts and look up Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The government housing mega-pimps are the biggest losers of all. Goldman, Morgan, JP Morgan? All profitably repaid to the taxpayers. Just the facts.

Ford didn't take a bailout. You wanted facts, didn't you?

[-] 1 points by rayl (1007) 2 years ago

ford was loaned 5.9 billion to retool in 2009. that's slightly different from a bailout but taxpayers money nonetheless. just the facts...

[-] 0 points by Centerrightcountry (16) 2 years ago

I guess you ignored everything else.

Freddie and Fannie, the twin government housing pimps, are the biggest losers. The UAW bailout at Chrysler and GM is up there too. Goldman, Morgan, and JP Morgan all paid it back and all with a profit for taxpayers.

Come off the propaganda and get yourself up-to-date.

[-] 2 points by rayl (1007) 2 years ago

chrysler and gm were bailed out not the uaw, get your facts straight. nowhere is there any evidence that the uaw was bailed out. get yourself up to date.

[-] -1 points by Centerrightcountry (16) 2 years ago

Get your facts straight, the UAW saw a near 90 cent on the dollar recovery. Bondholders (retirees as well but ones Obama threw under the bus), got about 30 cents. It was too a UAW bailout. Shareholders of both were wiped out.

[-] 2 points by rayl (1007) 2 years ago

that was a result of the bailout but not who the money was officially given to. if the company i work for is bailed out, i personally am not being given the money even if i do benefit from it in the end. the auto industry probably never would have needed the bailouts in the first place if it wasn't for the financial collapse caused by the banks, fannie, freddie and the government.

[-] -1 points by Centerrightcountry (16) 2 years ago

Yeah, the UAW thing just sort of happened. Who knew? LOL.

The auto industry didn't need a bailout. GM and Chrysler went bankrupt. Few seem aware of this fact. The country has a well oiled process for industrial bankruptcies. You may not even be aware, but American Airlines is in such a process right now. Obama strong-armed the process to bailout the UAW at the expense of the taxpayer and other creditors such as the bondholders. He demonized creditors that didn't want to go along, that wanted a normal Chapter 11 process, as greedy. It was Russian-like bullying and something that shouldn't have a place in our legal processes.

[-] 2 points by rayl (1007) 2 years ago

few were aware because of selective media coverage as with american airlines right now. the bailout helped many thousands of people. that you find the president's actions unsatisfactory is not my problem. the irresponsible actions of the financial industry is the major source of the world-wide recession and the repercussions from it are not anyway near over.

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

It already did beat you. It's a completely false analysis.

Remember, before you try and think?

Make sure your brain cells are fully involved.

[-] 0 points by Centerrightcountry (16) 2 years ago

A non-reply. Really, why does it happen? Why is it so hard to explain?

Why do OWS-types want an end to corporate control only to replace it with union control? Why not advocate government being run for the people? What's liberal about just padding the staff? Liberals want bigger government and consider that to be a superior model to the private sector, yet government is this exploitive and unfair employer requiring unions to defend the workers? Huh? How does taxing working families and making them worse off to see government wages wise making those "working families" better off elevate working families?

I know you don't have answers outside of typical militancy and blind support for unions. But liberals have a crook in their midst. It's time for the left to recognize the rot within.

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

If you're gonna fling poo, would you please keep it to one turd at a time?

[-] 0 points by Centerrightcountry (16) 2 years ago

Another non-response.

Why is corporate control bad, but union control good? If government is the model, how come the model is so abusive as an employer that employees can only turn to unions? How does elevating the pay of government workers from the tax money of non-government workers make non-government workers better off? How does supporting the middle class (a typical argument for high government salaries) by taxing the middle class work exactly? Are government jobs supposed to be about doing the public's work or are they supposed to be about income redistribution?

Liberals have a rot in their ranks called public unions.

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

You're the one with a mind so full of poo, you can't fling one turd at a time.

It just pours out of every post.

I'll deal with the first multi-poo question

Corporations as a whole, are the entities that create recessions.

Unions helped build a strong economically mobile middle class.

[-] -1 points by Centerrightcountry (16) 2 years ago

Another non-response.

Why is corporate control bad, but union control good?

So, taking from the private sector middle class to give to the public sector middle class builds the middle class? Are government jobs supposed to be about doing the public's work or are they supposed to be about income redistribution? If government is the best model, how come government is such an oppressive employer that only unions can rescue its workers?

[-] 2 points by pewestlake (947) from Brooklyn, NY 2 years ago

What "union control?" Show us one thing in the past thirty-plus years that indicates unions are in "control." Show us one negotiation over the past thirty years that hasn't resulted in unions taking a hit on the promises management has continually reneged on. Show us the power unions have wielded since Reagan broke the Air Traffic Controllers union. Prove it.

The only thing you could possibly point to is the comparison between union and non-union wages over that time period and that has everything to do with management being in "control" of the non-union workforce, not unions. So go ahead and use it if you want to prove my point. But if you want to prove your point, you'll have to dig a lot deeper. And good luck with that.

[-] -2 points by Centerrightcountry (16) 2 years ago

I'll show you the Wisconsin recall. Public unions are a corruption as they allow the unions to work, but then vote for their own bosses to the disadvantage of the people. They're relentless advocates for bigger government and higher taxes,all simply because they work there. But that's the obvious stuff.

The question is about why liberals support it. Why do liberals think the middle class is elevated just because they've taxed private sector working families only to hand it over to government sector working families? Why have they lost interest in the programs government runs and instead line up in support of excessive retirement packages that bleed money away from those programs?

Why would anyone support building infrastructure only to see it seized by a public union and the public extorted if it wants to use what it bought? Building subway lines, light rail, or other mass transit is just stupid under these conditions.

[-] 2 points by pewestlake (947) from Brooklyn, NY 2 years ago

"I'll show you the Wisconsin recall."

Not enough union members in the State to affect that outcome without the general populous. Sorry, kiddo. That's not it. Try again.

"They're relentless advocates for bigger government and higher taxes, all simply because they work there."

That is not only false but it's essentially slander. Show me where unions are relentless advocates for "bigger government." Where is the literature? Where are the rallies for "big government?" Where are they?

"Why have they lost interest in the programs government runs and instead line up in support of excessive retirement packages that bleed money away from those programs?"

Show me where they've "lost interest in the programs government runs." Last I checked, the post office wanted to keep it's employees. And those "excessive retirement packages" weren't excessive when they were negotiated in good faith. Only by virtue of flat wages in the non-union workforce over thirty years have those packages even begun to look large but, as you Randians are so often want to say, we don't fix it by bringing successful negotiators down, we fix it by "lifting all boats." But, of course, you believe that "principle" only applies to people like John Galt and his fraternity pals.

"Why would anyone support building infrastructure only to see it seized by a public union and the public extorted if it wants to use what it bought? Building subway lines, light rail, or other mass transit is just stupid under these conditions."

All mass transit is and has always been subsidized, even those systems that were privately owned at one time. Nothing was ever "seized" by a public union because public unions don't own any infrastructure. You got some creative talking points there, I'll grant you that. But that's all it is. Clever and totally meaningless talking points.

But since you brought it up, what justified the collusion of National City Lines (formed by Standard Oil, Goodyear and Firestone tire, among others) in buying and dismantling perfectly good and inexpensive municipal transit systems and replacing them with an infrastructure they had no intention of building themselves? Why is it OK for big business to dismantle the public sector for its own benefit and at extremely high cost to taxpayers but paying someone a decent wage really chaps your butt? Oh, that's right, because you're either totally ignorant of reality or a shill for the 1%.

You got nothing, kid. Nada.

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

Kudos for putting it out point by point............:)

I've lost patience with the flingers of multiple pooo .

I try and get 'em to stick to one subject and it usually just frustrates them.

[-] 2 points by pewestlake (947) from Brooklyn, NY 2 years ago

Thanks! I usually don't have the patience either but I'm watching baseball and cooking a slow dinner, so... ;-)

[-] -1 points by Centerrightcountry (16) 2 years ago

Sure, there is. They turn out. You can rightly blame voters for letting unions fuck them at the polls like that, but they're still getting fucked. Their families turn out too. And liberals turn out, why I don't know, but liberals turn out for union control as well. That's exactly what Wisconsin represents: the unions are outraged at not controlling the boss. They want it changed, now.

Negotiated in good faith? Bullshit. That's not what it is when you control both sides of the table. The unions negotiated with beholden politicians that sold out the public. Again, where's OWS to understand and to have a problem with this?

Of course, the Post Office wants to keep it employees. The union and the bureaucracy will do anything possible to resist change and continue to ignore email. I'm not surprised, are you?

Unions don't own the infrastructure, but they control it. Their unions hold it hostage to their terms. If they outright owned it, it might be better. Then at least it would be their invested dollars, not ours. But to drop billions into a new system just to have them move in and set up shop is a bad deal for taxpayers. For us to build the project, but then to have the union dictate how we'll use it is just wrong.

Shill for the 1% because government should have serving the people as the top objective? You're a shill for AFSCME. Supporting AFSCME isn't supporting the middle class, it's supporting gumming up our services and supporting transfers from non-government middle class families to government middle class families. It's a flow from taxpayers to the entrenched. They want us to think they're sticking it the the Man, but all they're really doing is sticking it their neighbors. You believe them. That makes you the shill, not me.

[-] 2 points by pewestlake (947) from Brooklyn, NY 2 years ago

There's no such thing as "union control" and until you drop that utterly meaningless stupidity, I'm not interested in anything else you have to say.

PS - This isn't a "center right" country either. Not by a long shot.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

This one is just plain silly.

!00% fact free hyperbole. Bordering on Heritage propaganda.

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

I did answer it......!

You just have reading problems.

So you repeat yourself a lot, and fling more poo.

[-] 1 points by Centerrightcountry (16) 2 years ago

Another non-response. Liberals "fight" corporate control only to support union control of our government, but why? Why can't government be controlled by the people? How does taking from middle class non-government families to enhance the incomes of middle class government families build middle class life? Are government jobs supposed to be about doing the public's work or about transfer payments? Government should replace the private sector, yet government is this sweatshop exploitive employer where defenseless employees need a union? Maybe it's the union doing the exploiting of a hapless government that they control for their own purposes, at our expense.

Please, reconcile why liberals support government unions.

[-] 2 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 2 years ago

From social workers to first responders, i'm glad that there is people tasked with picking up the broken pieces of market competition.

Because the rules of capitalism state there must be winners and losers, it becomes imperative that there is a well paid gov't to take care of the portion of the populous that just could not muster the constant competition and volatility of market forces. Are you not glad that there are well paid police officers guarding you property? Would you not fear that the Gov't would become more susceptible to corruption if they were not well paid? I am more inclined to trust a judge if I know he don't need to make deals with the prison industry to ensure a comfortable retirement.

[-] 0 points by Centerrightcountry (16) 2 years ago

Government does some worthwhile things, agreed. I like fireman and first responders. I don't even mind that we pay well when we need to pay well. No problem there in the least.

But it's about control. Nothing in any of that says that public unions should exist and nothing in that says that de facto letting the unions run government is good. Government should be run for the people and make decisions about staffing, pay and such for the people, not just to placate the union.

Government unions do damage. Think about infrastructure and what happens if you build a new transit system. We invest the $10 billion, but then the union takes over and from then on, the system is held hostage by the union and we're extorted. But it's our transit system. Why do liberals support that? Transit systems should operate for the people, not just the employees.

Look at the outrage in Wisconsin. Unions are incensed at no longer controlling their boss. Recalls are extreme measures, but they're pissed and aim to get things back to normal. But normal is, the public loses and government serving its own employees comes first. It's broken, but liberals support it.

[-] 2 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 2 years ago

You know the only branch of government that does not have a union is SCOTUS, and low and behold they are the least paid public officials. Unions, no matter the sector, are needed. Besides, just as what is happening in Wisconsin now, there are checks against over glutinous unions. Remember the Wisconsin public unions were going to take a pay reduction to save their collective bargaining rights; they just could not get Lord Walker to compromise.

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

More pointless poo flinging?

I did answer. You're nothing short of funny by asserting that unions have ever controlled government.

Nothing short of ludicrous.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by Centerrightcountry (16) 2 years ago

And another non-response.

Corporate control should be replaced by union control, but why? Make the case. How does shifting resources from middle class tax payers to government middle class workers help underpin the middle class? Government is the best model, yet government is an exploitive employer that requires union worker protections. Reconcile this.

Causing a recall and then hand picking the candidate isn't about control of government? Interesting.

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

Yes, poo flinging.

You keep pushing the false premiss of a "government union"

That's pure poo, and you keep flinging it as though it adds credence to something. It doesn't.

Then you add in a plethora of questions, assumptions and assertions, based on that false premiss, with an aim to confuse the issue.

Corporations creating recessions, did answer the first part of your question.

Unions creating a middle class did answer the second part.

You're just in denial.

That issue being that you HATE the concept of unions.

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 2 years ago

Well, I would not go that far. Right wing contracted gov't officials, you know the ones with no government over sight, are just as culpable, maybe even more so because they only serve themselves and are war profiteers. Enron, Halliburton, medicare part D and XI have to be the epitome of gov't largess and hording of the trough. At least, the unions provide needed services.

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 2 years ago

You make a compelling case. I believe it is one of a few legitimate cases the right make. To bad there was not more than two parties for us to interact with because maybe there needs to be more checks against the workers having the ability to vote in those they get to collectively bargain against. I see your point and it is a valid one.

[-] 1 points by Centerrightcountry (16) 2 years ago

Jesse:

No doubt, unions in government have moved up wages. No argument here. In fact, they've vastly surpassed in many cases the income of the people that pay for it. In government, they're crowding out the programs liberals have long claimed to love. Why do liberals support retirement packages that are far in excess of that of ordinary taxpayers? They bleed middle class taxpayers, yet that helps the middle class somehow? The left now favors retirees over active teachers and fireman. But why?

Collective bargaining is just a method of extortion. Build a transit system only to have it taken over and held hostage? Why would we do that? And it wouldn't be have as bad if the unions weren't effectively electing their own bosses. Collective bargaining breaks when they run both sides of the table. But the question remains as to why liberals support it. Why this control over government instead of government simply operating for the people?

[-] 0 points by Centerrightcountry (16) 2 years ago

Jesse: Sadly, liberals are no reformers. At best, they just want to replace other interests at the trough with their own interests at the trough. It remains a game of seeing what can be siphoned off, but liberals support it. The left has come to view public employment as just another social program and not about simply doing work for the public. It's especially destructive as government itself gets co-opted by the unions.

Think about the infrastructure example. That's what happens. Public investments get paid for by the taxpayers, but then the unions set up shop and dictate to us how (and even if) we'll use them. Our own investments are held hostage and the extortion begins.

[-] -1 points by Centerrightcountry (16) 2 years ago

Jesse:

But they also compromise those very services. They dictate the work rules, operations, and economics. For example, funding excessive retirement packages directly crowds out the services you mention them providing. They're turning government into something that distributes at the expense of a government that should serve.

At it's core is the union's ability to control both sides of the table. What they don't like, they simply fix at the ballot box. Wisconsin is the rawest example of the unions trying to own both sides of the table. And when they do that, when they elect and control their own bosses, no one is left to represent the people, the people that government is supposed to serve. Liberals support it and I don't know why.

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (9780) 2 years ago

Thanks for the uplifting article, I hope things get worse for them from here on out.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

Me too.

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

May they drown in their own slime.......:)

Is there a link to watch the video?

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

If I have any money left after I pay my taxes, I'll get a copy, as it's unlikely to see wide distribution.........:)

This needs a bump anyway.

May their next week be ever worse.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

I hope so.

[-] 1 points by rayl (1007) 2 years ago

give 'em enough rope....

[Removed]

[Removed]

[Removed]