Americans for prosperity back at it

[Sbee]

http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20140520/METRO01/305200040/1361/rss41

keep in mind the 30,000 retired city workers are living on pensions of around 18k per year. I guess the state helping in this settlement is too much for them to handle.

 

[turok]

They should change their name to reflect its true purpose, such as "Americans For Economic Darwinism"

 

[Sbee]

two oil billionaires who inherited all of their money pumping 100m+ into elections this year, what's not to love about that?

 

[Gulo Blue]

They should change their name to reflect its true purpose, such as "Americans For Economic Darwinism"

Economic Darwinism might be a fine way to do things. But organisms grow old and die. Add a mechanism for that (like a tax that starts at age 40 and increases every year) and maybe it could do some good.

 

[turok]

Economic Darwinism might be a fine way to do things. But organisms grow old and die. Add a mechanism for that (like a tax that starts at age 40 and increases every year) and maybe it could do some good.

Why would a n annually increasing "age" tax be necessary when the rising costs of health insurance premiums, co-pays, and deductibles, as well as long-term elderly/disabled care essentially has/does/will do the same thing? It is also apparently becoming increasingly difficult for the middle-aged unemployed to find gainful employment, even for the educated and/or skilled.

Just burying the homeless poor and indigent has become so prohibitively expensive, that the city of Detroit has resorted to stacking them 4 deep and burying them in mass-graves. Maybe the city could save even more $$$ if they just poured gasoilne all over the corpses and burned them down to ashes to put in a barrel, or send them through the garbage/sludge incinerator.

Maybe that will soon also become the fate of many of the suburban and rural deceased, if they and/or their surviving family members, if any, can no longer afford a cremation, much less a funeral/burial.

 

[Gulo Blue]

Why would a n annually increasing "age" tax be necessary when the rising costs of health insurance premiums, co-pays, and deductibles, as well as long-term elderly/disabled care essentially has/does/will do the same thing? It is also apparently becoming increasingly difficult for the middle-aged unemployed to find gainful employment, even for the educated and/or skilled.

Just burying the homeless poor and indigent has become so prohibitively expensive, that the city of Detroit has resorted to stacking them 4 deep and burying them in mass-graves. Maybe the city could save even more $$$ if they just poured gasoilne all over the corpses and burned them down to ashes to put in a barrel, or send them through the garbage/sludge incinerator.

Maybe that will soon also become the fate of many of the suburban and rural deceased, if they and/or their surviving family members, if any, can no longer afford a cremation, much less a funeral/burial.

Not a tax based on the age of people. A corporate tax based on the age of the company. Force companies to age and die like organisms...if you want economic Darwinism. It's pretty much unworkable. I'm sure there'd be unavoidable loopholes. But it's a neat idea to think about (and not mine.)

 

[Spartanmack]

two oil billionaires who inherited all of their money pumping 100m+ into elections this year, what's not to love about that?

Inherited all their money? The founder died in 1967 leaving the company to his 4 sons - two of whom in 1983 (16 years later) financed a buyout of the other 2 for $1.1B - assuming they all had equal shares and accounting for the fact that the 2 own 84% of the company, that means 16 years AFTER the death of the father the company was worth around $2.6B. Forbes pegs the value of the company today at $100B. Sure they were already rich but they are two of the most accomplished businessmen in the world.

 

[Thumb]

Inherited all their money? The founder died in 1967 leaving the company to his 4 sons - two of whom in 1983 (16 years later) financed a buyout of the other 2 for $1.1B - assuming they all had equal shares and accounting for the fact that the 2 own 84% of the company, that means 16 years AFTER the death of the father the company was worth around $2.6B. Forbes pegs the value of the company today at $100B. Sure they were already rich but they are two of the most accomplished businessmen in the world.

Who would have guessed an oil company would get more valuable over time? :hmm:

 

[Gulo Blue]

Inherited all their money? The founder died in 1967 leaving the company to his 4 sons - two of whom in 1983 (16 years later) financed a buyout of the other 2 for $1.1B - assuming they all had equal shares and accounting for the fact that the 2 own 84% of the company, that means 16 years AFTER the death of the father the company was worth around $2.6B. Forbes pegs the value of the company today at $100B. Sure they were already rich but they are two of the most accomplished businessmen in the world.

It's a different world when you're talking about that much time and money. To put a little perspective on that, that's an increase that exceeds the DJIA by a factor of 2.7. Meanwhile, Berkshire Hathaway outpaced the DJIA by a factor of 17 over the same time frame.

 

[tinselwolverine]

Just burying the homeless poor and indigent has become so prohibitively expensive, that the city of Detroit has resorted to stacking them 4 deep and burying them in mass-graves. Maybe the city could save even more $$$ if they just poured gasoilne all over the corpses and burned them down to ashes to put in a barrel, or send them through the garbage/sludge incinerator.

This.

 

[Gulo Blue]

If you want to defend this stuff, just be willing to acknowledge that you're against democracy. You are against the pursuit of equal political participation and power among citizens.

 

[Spartanmack]

Who would have guessed an oil company would get more valuable over time? :hmm:

Oh, so it's all inflation? Tell me, how many billions did you make investing in oil and oil companies? Where was oil trading in he 80s, how bott he 90s and the early 2000s? Why have so many oil companies failed in such a no brainer industry? Koch industries is a true conglomerate - they're involved in chemicals, fertilizers, agriculture, ranching, chemical equipment, mining and minerals (guess everyone else saw the commodities boom too, huh?), finance, commodity and energy trading. All things that were so obvious, which is of course why everyone did it and has made 100x their money.

 

[Spartanmack]

It's a different world when you're talking about that much time and money. To put a little perspective on that, that's an increase that exceeds the DJIA by a factor of 2.7. Meanwhile, Berkshire Hathaway outpaced the DJIA by a factor of 17 over the same time frame.

How much did you beat the DJIA by over that time? Never mind that the DJIA is a stupid metric that only dinosaurs still use or the fact that warren buffet is the biggest scumbag insider trader of all time.

 

[Spartanmack]

If you want to defend this stuff, just be willing to acknowledge that you're against democracy. You are against the pursuit of equal political participation and power among citizens.

I'm not defending their politics - All I know about their politics is that liberals hate them. When I hear you guys pissing and moaning about George Soros and Tom Steyer throwing their money behind liberal causes and politicians, then I'll take your criticism of the Koch's more seriously.

 

[Gulo Blue]

How much did you beat the DJIA by over that time? Never mind that the DJIA is a stupid metric that only dinosaurs still use or the fact that warren buffet is the biggest scumbag insider trader of all time.

So what? You divide both sides by the same thing to get the numbers down to quantities you can grasp...it doesn't really matter what you think of the DJIA. Compare to whatever you want. Compare them to each other. Berkshire turns money into more money over 6 times faster than Koch.

...and I crushed both of them over that same time period, mostly because my net worth and allowance weren't much in '83.

 

[Gulo Blue]

I'm not defending their politics - All I know about their politics is that liberals hate them. When I hear you guys pissing and moaning about George Soros and Tom Steyer throwing their money behind liberal causes and politicians, then I'll take your criticism of the Koch's more seriously.

I've never heard of Steyer, but I'm anti-Soros.

...and my post wasn't a criticism of their politics. It's a criticism of the money=speech attitude.

 

[Spartanmack]

So what? You divide both sides by the same thing to get the numbers down to quantities you can grasp...it doesn't really matter what you think of the DJIA. Compare to whatever you want. Compare them to each other. Berkshire turns money into more money over 6 times faster than Koch.

...and I crushed both of them over that same time period, mostly because my net worth and allowance weren't much in '83.

You act as though warren buffets are a dime a dozen or that 2.7x isn't an awesome return particularly on such a large capital base and when 100% of the risk is theirs - they have never had any shareholders. They didn't dump their company on the public market when oil prices tanked, they didn't raise outside money, at least not equity to fund their bets and they're not scumbag CEOs like John Chambers who paid themselves obscene amounts of money without risking a dime of their own capital. Sure they had a leg up but they kicked ass even or maybe especially relative to others who inherited multi-million dollar fortunes. People who can't acknowledge that are clearly just partisan windbags.

 

[Spartanmack]

I've never heard of Steyer, but I'm anti-Soros.

...and my post wasn't a criticism of their politics. It's a criticism of the money=speech attitude.

I'll take you at your word there but you have to admit, that makes you rare among those on the left (if in fact you are on the left).

Personally, I think the money=free speech is politics but I wasn't defending that either. And I forgot to include unions on that list - Soros, Steyer (he's relatively new to the game) , and unions.

 

[Thumb]

See Red, I told you you were a lib....you're the only one who doesn't believe it now. :tup:

 

[Gulo Blue]

You act as though warren buffets are a dime a dozen or that 2.7x isn't an awesome return particularly on such a large capital base and when 100% of the risk is theirs - they have never had any shareholders. They didn't dump their company on the public market when oil prices tanked, they didn't raise outside money, at least not equity to fund their bets and they're not scumbag CEOs like John Chambers who paid themselves obscene amounts of money without risking a dime of their own capital. Sure they had a leg up but they kicked ass even or maybe especially relative to others who inherited multi-million dollar fortunes. People who can't acknowledge that are clearly just partisan windbags.

What do you mean I'm acting like Buffets are a dime a dozen? I didn't say anything like that. You called them 2 of the most accomplished businessmen in the world. I don't know if the Koch's are great businessmen or if they're just good at hiring the right businessmen. I don't think you can tell how accomplished they are just from the change in their wealth. But I do like putting a little scale to the big numbers you were throwing around.