Study: More Than Half a Trillion Dollars Spent on Welfare But Poverty Levels Unaffect

Thanks, but...

I don't really care what a particular think-tank thinks. I was interested in the 'meddling in...' - I presumed that they were having a direct effect on government policy, and wondered what that effect has been. If they have directed public policy, which policy or policies are you referring to, and can you show a direct or indirect link?

 

Here's one example of their meddling.

Meet The Climate Denial Machine -and another.

Koch brothers now at heart of GOP power -here's one more.

 

Meddling in Gov' policy not a universities policies (etc).

Is this false? Majority of Americans accept reality of climate change

http://www.globalchange.gov/

Sorry, but you seem to be clutching at straws... : /

 

That's more like it. Kind of : / Thanks.

 

Florida State University is publically funded.

 

Which is no more stale than that which you and he continually repost, looking for who to place blame on rather than an attempt to resolve issues at their source.

 

I don't distance myself from them, like I've said before you can take what they have presented in the "study" mentioned and access the data related to it directly from the government and draw your own conclusions. In fact the conclusions reached by Cato were drawn by me long before they produced their study, and not the other way round. For many decades now, it has been my conclusion that we have a Federal government spending problem, and increased taxation and/or revenues has proven NOT to be a solution to that problem but instead THE source. The Federal government has proven consistently, that no matter which party is in control, it will continually spend every dollar of revenue collected plus more. The methodology employed is based on a constant controlled devaluation of our currency with price and wage increases, and stagnation of the middle class, while allowing the rich to become richer while paying higher taxes, and the government spending greater amounts to care for the poor and needy while piling debt onto future generations. The unfunded liabilities are ignored and at some point will become the source of collapse caused by hyperinflation. You cannot borrow your way out of debt, look at Greece.

 

I noticed. And? It's hardly going to effect the whole country is it? It's hardly government policy. I can see it's influencing something in a small way, but hardly something to write home about. Underwhelmed, that's all.

 

That the very private Charles Koch purchased the right to interfere in faculty hiring at a publicly funded university in and of itself might not be a nation changer, but what about when coupled with:

So how much meddling is meddling?

Koch political meddling undemocratic - and here's another example.

 

outthere2,

By golly, I think you might have just provided a solution to not only the unemployment problem, but also the obesity problem, the production of environmentally clean energy, and a healthy exercise regimen. We could employ the millions of people now unemployed pedaling to turn the turbines that produce the energy needed, and with 3 shifts a day we could have energy production around the clock, full employment, and eliminate the need for dieting by all those employed who would then be getting adequate exercise to burn those unneeded calories and improve their health.

 

The very private conservative of course is Charles Koch, founder of the Cato Institute, funder of the OP policy analysis on which this thread is based.

What part of Charles' meddling in government or publically funded education is not meddling?

 

Individual, do you now retract your quoted statement?

Are you a producer or a parasite?

 

No.

 

Is your position that we can only talk about what Cato says and not who they are?

My position is that the people behind Cato are just as relevent to this thread as what Cato says.

 

And I almost thought you were beginning to see the light, but then you removed the following from your previous post.

---Quote (Originally by Individual)---
The more power those who govern are allowed to amass and wield, only provides a more effective source to those who can afford to purchase and shape the laws and rules under which we all must live to their benefit in the long run.
---End Quote---
You summed it up well Indie

 

You got me!

Sometimes I post too hastily...

I removed the second part because of the "those who govern" part of the quote. I felt that would take us down the rabbit hole.

What is your position?

 

: /

Is Koch manipulating FSU or is the left manipulating media consumers?

“These are the facts: The Koch Foundation does not review and approve faculty applicants. The economics department received approximately 500 applications for two positions. Fifty of these applicants were considered worthy of further consideration by the faculty. These 50 were sent to an advisory board for their input. The advisory board, formed in 2008, consisted of two FSU faculty members, both Eminent Scholars in Economics, and a Ph.D. economist appointed by the Koch Foundation. This board recommended 16 of the 50 candidates proposed by the faculty search committee for further consideration. Ultimately, the 2 people hired did not come from this list, but instead were recommended by the faculty from a separate pool of applicants.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...media-consumers/2011/03/29/AFhf9U1G_blog.html

(You did ask for somebody from the 'right' to comment)

To be fair, any financial lobbying is 'meddling' - I understand that. And there is no doubt they have a strong influence just on reputation alone. But the the devil is always in the detail. And how much influence do you think the celebrity donors/supporters have - who generally lean to the left.

'One of the new Energy and Commerce Committee members include Rep. Mike Pompeo, R-Wichita and he hired a former Koch Industries lawyer as his chief of staff. Other key players include its new chairman, Rep. Fred Upton. He is a Republican from Michigan who was once criticized for being too soft on the EPA. Now he and others are likely to try and gut the EPA to the best of their abilities.'

It's suspiciously low on actual detail, don't you think? It sounds a like like: "Well, obviously they are going to try and gut the EPA - but we can't show you how"

- two people: one with a tenuous link and one who was criticised for being to soft on the EPA

WOW! stop the press.

It's a bit of leap in logic isn't it?

 

My position is simply that the more power we allow the Federal government to acquire without need of obtaining the consent of the governed, the less free we all become in making choices and the more costly it becomes to administer government from a central point, far removed from where the controls are applied, which requires constant tinkering which can result in crisis situations which have devastating effects on all. In my opinion the 50 sovereign State solution is the best available, united only in the areas which they collectively agree as provided for within our Constitution.

"Those who govern" is quite relevant, as "they" are the ones who are empowered to enforce or ignore, as the case may be, the rules both new and old created by the Federal government upon us. Neither the Cato Institute nor the Koch bros. have that power.

 

[size=+2]Corporate ed: no evidence of meddling here![/size]

 

you don't have to dig very deep to know that the EPA is on Cato's hit list.

Try educating yourself on the subject matter before you post.

For more on Cato's dislike of environmental regulations: Meet the Climate Denial Machine