John Stossel: 'Why I Wish The Koch Brothers Spent Even More Money On Politics'...

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Ha, Stossel always nails it.


Lots of people sure hate the Koch brothers.

The Kochs get death threats like this: “If I had a chance to murder a Koch brother in cold blood, I would surely take it.”

Jim Dean doesn’t want to kill the Kochs, but he does want new laws to limit their influence. Dean’s brother Howard was a Democratic presidential candidate, and Dean chairs a group called Democracy for America.

“Get money out of politics,” Dean says on my show this week.

But Dean’s not just unhappy because the Kochs have money to throw around. He doesn’t like their politics.

“The Koch brothers are poster boys for everything that is wrong in politics because they spend so much,” he says, and they have extreme goals like “getting rid of Social Security and environmental laws.”

But they don’t. They just think today’s environmental laws go too far, and they want to save Social Security from going broke.

Dean says Social Security “has been one of the best social programs we’ve ever had.” When I point out that it’s unsustainable, he says, “The math works for another 20 years.” Wow. 20 years.

If the Kochs’ views were the same as George Soros’, I don’t think liberals like Dean would complain as much. But Dean claims he’s no hypocrite...

Read More:
Why I wish the Koch brothers spent even more money on politics Fox News

Funny thing is, if they wanted to get rid of Social Security, I would like them even more.

You think Stossel gave up his Social Security and Medicare? He turns 68 this week.

Why should he give up something he was forced to pay into?

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Is it really good that their money gives them such a loud voice in politics? Would you want them to have so much influence if you disagreed with them?

You say that but have no comment on the billion plus that unions spend, you didn't read the article did ya?

Yes, the Communists/Progressives have Soros, and others have the Koch Brothers. Nothing wrong with that. That's America.

The Koch's spending and organization makes Soros look like an amateur.

And the unions spending a billion plus last cycle makes all of them look like amateurs.

Unions are more than two guys trying to radically change things for their own sakes. No matter how you spin it there is just no leftist equivalent, especially not one that bankrolls the fringe left and gives it legitimacy.

Actually, since unions don't really represent the opinions and interests of their members, they ARE two guys trying to radically change things for their own sakes. They push for amnesty so they can get illegal aliens as members and don't care if they put Americans out of work. Unions may have started as a group of people, but now they are a political machine that runs roughshod over their members or anyone else who gets in the way.

 

[OKTexas]

So you want money out of politics, unless it's your guys spending it, got it. LMAO

If a bunch of people pool their money to spend it is a democratic kind of thing, it's different than billionaires meddling in politics as a hobby. Those people need to be reminded that America is purposely not supposed to have a political aristocracy no matter what party they blow money on.

Except when that bunch of people have their money forcibly taken by a union and spent on people and causes that not all their members agree with, do you really call that a bunch of guys pooling their money? And it's the professional politicians that need to be reminded that we're not supposed to have a political aristocracy, not the donors.

Most union members agree on spending money on the pro-labor candidate, these days it's a pretty easy choice. If the Koch's just spent money on things that were directly related to their business and bottom line their activities would not be so weird, unusual and potentially dangerous.

The operative word there is "most", not all union members agree with the way their money is being spent and in most states they have no option to opt out. At least the Koch brothers are spending their money and not extorting it from others.

That's a matter for debate, do you think the more liberal employees of Koch industries get a say in their efforts to snatch away social programs or gut environmental/labor regs. that benefit them? Shit no. Both Unions and Koch have the same opt-out, don't work for them if it matters that much. In the end you cannot point your finger at anyone equivalent on the left, unions are not trying to radically change anything to the degree the Koch's are attempting.

Really, what about the NEA? They spend tons of money at all levels and are as radical as it comes. They spent $29,403,594 most is soft money going to PACS, combined unions spent more than a billion in 2014.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

The level the Kochs and a few select are investing into GOP, the whole party is compromised.

If it was a tin pot dictator in Africa it would be called bribery and corruption.

Personally I am for all money out of politics, Public funding only...

The whole systemis maddness at this stage.

Oh good, I'm glad you agree that ACORN should be defunded and eliminated as a political influence paid for by taxpayers. Or do you?

 

[occupied]

If a bunch of people pool their money to spend it is a democratic kind of thing, it's different than billionaires meddling in politics as a hobby. Those people need to be reminded that America is purposely not supposed to have a political aristocracy no matter what party they blow money on.

Except when that bunch of people have their money forcibly taken by a union and spent on people and causes that not all their members agree with, do you really call that a bunch of guys pooling their money? And it's the professional politicians that need to be reminded that we're not supposed to have a political aristocracy, not the donors.

Most union members agree on spending money on the pro-labor candidate, these days it's a pretty easy choice. If the Koch's just spent money on things that were directly related to their business and bottom line their activities would not be so weird, unusual and potentially dangerous.

The operative word there is "most", not all union members agree with the way their money is being spent and in most states they have no option to opt out. At least the Koch brothers are spending their money and not extorting it from others.

That's a matter for debate, do you think the more liberal employees of Koch industries get a say in their efforts to snatch away social programs or gut environmental/labor regs. that benefit them? Shit no. Both Unions and Koch have the same opt-out, don't work for them if it matters that much. In the end you cannot point your finger at anyone equivalent on the left, unions are not trying to radically change anything to the degree the Koch's are attempting.

Really, what about the NEA? They spend tons of money at all levels and are as radical as it comes. They spent $29,403,594 most is soft money going to PACS, combined unions spent more than a billion in 2014.

NEA? Get real, the Koch's are giving money to people who want dismantle the welfare state and pull out entire federal agencies by the roots. What do the teachers want? Enough funding to adequately teach the brats and make a decent living at it, now there's some radical shit. Also it has been widely reported that the Koch's intend to spend nearly a billion dollars on the 2016 election. It's ******* insane that 2 individuals can spend the sum you claim all unions spent on electioneering in 2014.

 

[OKTexas]

Except when that bunch of people have their money forcibly taken by a union and spent on people and causes that not all their members agree with, do you really call that a bunch of guys pooling their money? And it's the professional politicians that need to be reminded that we're not supposed to have a political aristocracy, not the donors.

Most union members agree on spending money on the pro-labor candidate, these days it's a pretty easy choice. If the Koch's just spent money on things that were directly related to their business and bottom line their activities would not be so weird, unusual and potentially dangerous.

The operative word there is "most", not all union members agree with the way their money is being spent and in most states they have no option to opt out. At least the Koch brothers are spending their money and not extorting it from others.

That's a matter for debate, do you think the more liberal employees of Koch industries get a say in their efforts to snatch away social programs or gut environmental/labor regs. that benefit them? Shit no. Both Unions and Koch have the same opt-out, don't work for them if it matters that much. In the end you cannot point your finger at anyone equivalent on the left, unions are not trying to radically change anything to the degree the Koch's are attempting.

Really, what about the NEA? They spend tons of money at all levels and are as radical as it comes. They spent $29,403,594 most is soft money going to PACS, combined unions spent more than a billion in 2014.

NEA? Get real, the Koch's are giving money to people who want dismantle the welfare state and pull out entire federal agencies by the roots. What do the teachers want? Enough funding to adequately teach the brats and make a decent living at it, now there's some radical shit. Also it has been widely reported that the Koch's intend to spend nearly a billion dollars on the 2016 election. It's ******* insane that 2 individuals can spend the sum you claim all unions spent on electioneering in 2014.

Radical in the eyes of a statest maybe, I can think of several federal agencies I would shutter in a heartbeat and others I would consolidate that are performing duplicate functions with high overheads. Oh, and I would break up DHS, consolidating all those agencies under one umbrella was one of the biggest blunders Bush ever did.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Except when that bunch of people have their money forcibly taken by a union and spent on people and causes that not all their members agree with, do you really call that a bunch of guys pooling their money? And it's the professional politicians that need to be reminded that we're not supposed to have a political aristocracy, not the donors.

Most union members agree on spending money on the pro-labor candidate, these days it's a pretty easy choice. If the Koch's just spent money on things that were directly related to their business and bottom line their activities would not be so weird, unusual and potentially dangerous.

The operative word there is "most", not all union members agree with the way their money is being spent and in most states they have no option to opt out. At least the Koch brothers are spending their money and not extorting it from others.

That's a matter for debate, do you think the more liberal employees of Koch industries get a say in their efforts to snatch away social programs or gut environmental/labor regs. that benefit them? Shit no. Both Unions and Koch have the same opt-out, don't work for them if it matters that much. In the end you cannot point your finger at anyone equivalent on the left, unions are not trying to radically change anything to the degree the Koch's are attempting.

Really, what about the NEA? They spend tons of money at all levels and are as radical as it comes. They spent $29,403,594 most is soft money going to PACS, combined unions spent more than a billion in 2014.

NEA? Get real, the Koch's are giving money to people who want dismantle the welfare state and pull out entire federal agencies by the roots. What do the teachers want? Enough funding to adequately teach the brats and make a decent living at it, now there's some radical shit. Also it has been widely reported that the Koch's intend to spend nearly a billion dollars on the 2016 election. It's ******* insane that 2 individuals can spend the sum you claim all unions spent on electioneering in 2014.

Get real, the Koch's are giving money to people who want dismantle the welfare state and pull out entire federal agencies by the roots.

Oh gosh, that's terrible. Why is that terrible?

 

[ClosedCaption]

The Koch's spending and organization makes Soros look like an amateur.

And the unions spending a billion plus last cycle makes all of them look like amateurs.

Unions are more than two guys trying to radically change things for their own sakes. No matter how you spin it there is just no leftist equivalent, especially not one that bankrolls the fringe left and gives it legitimacy.

So you want money out of politics, unless it's your guys spending it, got it. LMAO

If a bunch of people pool their money to spend it is a democratic kind of thing, it's different than billionaires meddling in politics as a hobby. Those people need to be reminded that America is purposely not supposed to have a political aristocracy no matter what party they blow money on.

Except when that bunch of people have their money forcibly taken by a union and spent on people and causes that not all their members agree with, do you really call that a bunch of guys pooling their money? And it's the professional politicians that need to be reminded that we're not supposed to have a political aristocracy, not the donors.

No one is forced to work for a union silly

 

[paulitician]

And get real Communist/Progressive wankers. Threatening to kill someone for merely having different political beliefs?

Appeal to emotion. You have to have a better defense than "oh those poor Koch Boys".

All you Democrats should be ashamed of the deranged mongoloids you've created. You've fostered hate and violence. The Koch Brothers don't deserve that. It's Un-American.

Another appeal to emotion like people should be happy with money influencing politics because someone wuz mean to da wittle Koch Boys

I just call it like i see it. You guys have demonized the Koch Bothers to such an extreme, you've created many deranged mongoloids who actually want them dead. It's shameful. And Un-American.

That's still an appeal to emotions and you still haven't said why this is a good thing or how you would feel if they supported things you oppose

Their political beliefs are in line with my own for the most part. And i know those beliefs are not in line with Communists/Progressives like you, but there is still no justification in demonizing them to such an extreme. You've created many deranged loons who actually want them dead for merely having different political beliefs. It's not right.

They set out on a ruthless path to buy the corpro-fascist country they personally wanted regardless of the chaos and pain it might cost, I am surprised they do not have travel in armored cars.

That's your opinion.

 

[paulitician]

Social Security is not unsustainable. Stossel is retarded.

Well, that's your opinion. But many others think otherwise. I'm with Stossel on this one. The Koch Brothers are not the 'Evil Boogeyman' you Communists/Progressives have made them out to be. Their beliefs are actually quite reasonable and logical. Once you get past the hysterical Communist/Progressive screeching about em, you realize that.

Is it really good that their money gives them such a loud voice in politics? Would you want them to have so much influence if you disagreed with them?

You say that but have no comment on the billion plus that unions spend, you didn't read the article did ya?

Yes, the Communists/Progressives have Soros, and others have the Koch Brothers. Nothing wrong with that. That's America.

The Koch's spending and organization makes Soros look like an amateur.

Soros' reach is more global in scope. He has more influence overall. The Koch Brothers provide a balance. Nothing wrong with that.

 

[paulitician]

Social Security is not unsustainable. Stossel is retarded.

Well, that's your opinion. But many others think otherwise. I'm with Stossel on this one. The Koch Brothers are not the 'Evil Boogeyman' you Communists/Progressives have made them out to be. Their beliefs are actually quite reasonable and logical. Once you get past the hysterical Communist/Progressive screeching about em, you realize that.

Is it really good that their money gives them such a loud voice in politics? Would you want them to have so much influence if you disagreed with them?

You say that but have no comment on the billion plus that unions spend, you didn't read the article did ya?

Yes, the Communists/Progressives have Soros, and others have the Koch Brothers. Nothing wrong with that. That's America.

The Koch's spending and organization makes Soros look like an amateur.

Soros' reach is more global in scope. He has more influence overall. The Koch Brothers provide somewhat of a balance. Nothing wrong with that.

 

[paulitician]

Well, that's your opinion. But many others think otherwise. I'm with Stossel on this one. The Koch Brothers are not the 'Evil Boogeyman' you Communists/Progressives have made them out to be. Their beliefs are actually quite reasonable and logical. Once you get past the hysterical Communist/Progressive screeching about em, you realize that.

Is it really good that their money gives them such a loud voice in politics? Would you want them to have so much influence if you disagreed with them?

I actually despise George Soros. I think he's a foreign Communist piece of shite. But that being said, many American Communists/Progressives adore the man and don't mind him giving all that cash to their Democrats. I have to accept that.

The Koch Brothers' beliefs are pretty much in line with my own. So i have no problem with them spending their money on pushing those beliefs. The Communists have Soros, and others have the Koch Brothers. Simple as that.

Well I don't think it is good for the country for any of them. The Koch brothers make soros look poor btw. If soros had more money to throw than the Koch brothers you might have a different opinion.

The Democrats don't mind taking his cash. And they take a whole lot of it. Personally, i feel he's a foreign Communist piece of shite. But lots of American Communists/Progressives worship him. I accept that. It is what it is.

Exactly which Democratic Politicians takes Soros's cash? Soros says he gave up on Donating to politicians a DECADE ago.

He supplies lots of cash to Communist/Progressive agendas all around the world. And obviously that includes the American Democratic Party.

 

[Misty]

Liberals have an evil money pirate in soros. Yet I never see them bashing him.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Well, that's your opinion. But many others think otherwise. I'm with Stossel on this one. The Koch Brothers are not the 'Evil Boogeyman' you Communists/Progressives have made them out to be. Their beliefs are actually quite reasonable and logical. Once you get past the hysterical Communist/Progressive screeching about em, you realize that.

Is it really good that their money gives them such a loud voice in politics? Would you want them to have so much influence if you disagreed with them?

You say that but have no comment on the billion plus that unions spend, you didn't read the article did ya?

Yes, the Communists/Progressives have Soros, and others have the Koch Brothers. Nothing wrong with that. That's America.

The Koch's spending and organization makes Soros look like an amateur.

Soros' reach is more global in scope. He has more influence overall. The Koch Brothers provide a balance. Nothing wrong with that.

Approving of one and opposing the other is really approval for all of it

 

[paulitician]

Ha, Stossel always nails it.


Lots of people sure hate the Koch brothers.

The Kochs get death threats like this: “If I had a chance to murder a Koch brother in cold blood, I would surely take it.”

Jim Dean doesn’t want to kill the Kochs, but he does want new laws to limit their influence. Dean’s brother Howard was a Democratic presidential candidate, and Dean chairs a group called Democracy for America.

“Get money out of politics,” Dean says on my show this week.

But Dean’s not just unhappy because the Kochs have money to throw around. He doesn’t like their politics.

“The Koch brothers are poster boys for everything that is wrong in politics because they spend so much,” he says, and they have extreme goals like “getting rid of Social Security and environmental laws.”

But they don’t. They just think today’s environmental laws go too far, and they want to save Social Security from going broke.

Dean says Social Security “has been one of the best social programs we’ve ever had.” When I point out that it’s unsustainable, he says, “The math works for another 20 years.” Wow. 20 years.

If the Kochs’ views were the same as George Soros’, I don’t think liberals like Dean would complain as much. But Dean claims he’s no hypocrite...

Read More:
Why I wish the Koch brothers spent even more money on politics Fox News

Social Security is not unsustainable. Stossel is retarded.

Well, that's your opinion. But many others think otherwise. I'm with Stossel on this one. The Koch Brothers are not the 'Evil Boogeyman' you Communists/Progressives have made them out to be. Their beliefs are actually quite reasonable and logical. Once you get past the hysterical Communist/Progressive screeching about em, you realize that.

Is it really good that their money gives them such a loud voice in politics? Would you want them to have so much influence if you disagreed with them?

Good question. How do you feel about the millions Michael Bloomberg gives to gun confiscation causes?

I'm pretty sure Communists/Progressives are ok with it. Just a hunch though.

 

[Stephanie]

I wish they would just to watch Dirty harry Reid and his cult followers of sheep have a meltdown

it's funny

 

[paulitician]

Liberals have an evil money pirate in soros. Yet I never see them bashing him.

Kinda the point Stossel is making. They don't see Soros as an 'evil money pirate.' That label is reserved for only those who spend their money on political beliefs they disagree with. The Kochs are one of their biggest targets.

 

[paulitician]

Ha, Stossel always nails it.


Lots of people sure hate the Koch brothers.

The Kochs get death threats like this: “If I had a chance to murder a Koch brother in cold blood, I would surely take it.”

Jim Dean doesn’t want to kill the Kochs, but he does want new laws to limit their influence. Dean’s brother Howard was a Democratic presidential candidate, and Dean chairs a group called Democracy for America.

“Get money out of politics,” Dean says on my show this week.

But Dean’s not just unhappy because the Kochs have money to throw around. He doesn’t like their politics.

“The Koch brothers are poster boys for everything that is wrong in politics because they spend so much,” he says, and they have extreme goals like “getting rid of Social Security and environmental laws.”

But they don’t. They just think today’s environmental laws go too far, and they want to save Social Security from going broke.

Dean says Social Security “has been one of the best social programs we’ve ever had.” When I point out that it’s unsustainable, he says, “The math works for another 20 years.” Wow. 20 years.

If the Kochs’ views were the same as George Soros’, I don’t think liberals like Dean would complain as much. But Dean claims he’s no hypocrite...

Read More:
Why I wish the Koch brothers spent even more money on politics Fox News

Social Security is not unsustainable. Stossel is retarded.

Well, that's your opinion. But many others think otherwise. I'm with Stossel on this one. The Koch Brothers are not the 'Evil Boogeyman' you Communists/Progressives have made them out to be. Their beliefs are actually quite reasonable and logical. Once you get past the hysterical Communist/Progressive screeching about em, you realize that.

Is it really good that their money gives them such a loud voice in politics? Would you want them to have so much influence if you disagreed with them?

You say that but have no comment on the billion plus that unions spend, you didn't read the article did ya?

And in fact if nobody could donate millions to politics, it would hurt the Democrats far worse. Nearly all of Wall Street's richest billionaires are Democrats. So is Soros and Bloomberg. They say they don't want money influencing politics, but what they mean is they don't want REPUBLICAN money influencing politics.

Spot On.

 

[paulitician]

Is it really good that their money gives them such a loud voice in politics? Would you want them to have so much influence if you disagreed with them?

You say that but have no comment on the billion plus that unions spend, you didn't read the article did ya?

Yes, the Communists/Progressives have Soros, and others have the Koch Brothers. Nothing wrong with that. That's America.

The Koch's spending and organization makes Soros look like an amateur.

Really? Do you have a link for that, or did you just pull it out of your ass?

It's a bogus claim of equivalency when you know the Koch's are unprecedented in their spending. You chase some links to back up that they are similar enough to compare. Soros and his money could disappear tomorrow and few people would even notice and I would rejoice but if the Koch's financial influence went away? I can only dream. All the billionaires need to quit unduly meddling in the affairs of state.

Most Politicians in power are also Millionaires, some like John Kerry are even Billionaires. They run the show. Even your beloved Supreme Leader is a Multi-Millionaire. And his fortune will grow tremendously once out of office. So if you wanna get the Millionaires & Billionaires out of there, go for it. Good luck. But it ain't gonna happen.

 

[paulitician]

Yes, the Communists/Progressives have Soros, and others have the Koch Brothers. Nothing wrong with that. That's America.

The Koch's spending and organization makes Soros look like an amateur.

And the unions spending a billion plus last cycle makes all of them look like amateurs.

Unions are more than two guys trying to radically change things for their own sakes. No matter how you spin it there is just no leftist equivalent, especially not one that bankrolls the fringe left and gives it legitimacy.

So you want money out of politics, unless it's your guys spending it, got it. LMAO

If a bunch of people pool their money to spend it is a democratic kind of thing, it's different than billionaires meddling in politics as a hobby. Those people need to be reminded that America is purposely not supposed to have a political aristocracy no matter what party they blow money on.

Sorry, but that shipped sailed a long time ago. There is a Political Ruling-Class Elite now. Most if not all of the most powerful Politicians in America are Millionaires and Billionaires. They all belong to a special elite club. And you're never gonna be invited to join. Your naivety on that is a bit surprising.