The Koch Brothers: American Heros
[QUOTE=WorldTravel69;438984]Sign this.
[URL]http://petitions.moveon.org/sign/we-denounce-the-koch?source=mo&id=94412-27461261-LezppQx[/URL][/QUOTE][I]Far from trying to rig the system, I have spent decades opposing cronyism and all political favors, including mandates, subsidies and protective tariffs—even when we benefit from them. I believe that cronyism is nothing more than welfare for the rich and powerful, and should be abolished.
Koch Industries was the only major producer in the ethanol industry to argue for the demise of the ethanol tax credit in 2011. That government handout (which cost taxpayers billions) needlessly drove up food and fuel prices as well as other costs for consumers—many of whom were poor or otherwise disadvantaged. Now the mandate needs to go, so that consumers and the marketplace are the ones who decide the future of ethanol.
Instead of fostering a system that enables people to help themselves, America is now saddled with a system that destroys value, raises costs, hinders innovation and relegates millions of citizens to a life of poverty, dependency and hopelessness. This is what happens when elected officials believe that people's lives are better run by politicians and regulators than by the people themselves. Those in power fail to see that more government means less liberty, and liberty is the essence of what it means to be American. Love of liberty is the American ideal.[/I]
- Charles G. Koch, Chairman and CEO of Koch Industries.
[URL]http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303978304579475860515021286[/URL]
It would be nice if Soros had argued for the demise of his tax preferences, like Koch did for ethanol. He did not, and thanks largely to Democrat politicians, hedge fund managers have continued to park income offshore tax free and take advantage of carried interest.
Conservatives selling "freedom"
I have to laugh everytime I see a conservative selling "freedom". What a wonderful message. Everyone wants freedom.
But dig deeper and you'll see it's merely a feel-good slogan, because the underlying effects of conservative policies are not always good for people (and therefore not sellable). So they resort to selling "freedom".
In a free market the strong tend to get stronger. And sometimes, even stronger and stronger. When they get too big, you might find yourself at their mercy. Their motive is profit, not your welfare. And so you need rules and regulations to keep the powerful in check. Just last week, we learned Bank of America illegally charged its customers for credit monitoring and credit reporting services that were not received. The bank was ordered to pay roughly $772 million in refunds to customers and fines to federal regulators. You can thank the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, created under Obama for that one. We see the effects of free markets creating tremendous wealth in the top 1%, and some in government trying to counter that with redistributive legislation, that many of the very wealthy (like Buffett and Soros) support. While the "freedom" sellers attempt to demonize regulations and redistribution, these are usually good things for the average American. In some cases, they actually lead to [I]more[/I] freedom, like the freedom the ACA has given millions of Americans to obtain affordable health insurance and not have coverage denied or dropped, including more freedom to change jobs without losing access to affordable coverage.
Koch's position on ethanol subsidies doesn't mean much. What is ethanol, like 5% of their business? And how much would that really impact their individual wealth? Whereas liberals like Buffett and Soros support the Buffett rule, where they would take a significant hit. Tell me when the Kochs start supporting the Buffett rule, and maybe then I'll give them some credit. In the meantime, their free-market "liberty" propaganda will only continue to deceive the LIV, and perpetuate trends in economic inequality.
Please go ahead, we would like to know.
[QUOTE=DonB;439009]I once characterized Esten as either immoral, amoral, hopelessly naive or just plain stupid, I have since lowered my opinion of him.
I might add I have added several others to that category.
Don.[/QUOTE]Since we know that you were a winner of several Nobel Prizes, and as a recipient of the Medal of Honor, you will be buried in Arlington.
Talk about costs - but from a non-partisan source
I wouldn't trust Fox 'Fair and balanced my arse' News on this subject, it does have a reputation for lies (I.e. Intentional falsehoods rather than disagreements). How about the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office. On Monday it revised its cost estimate for the health care law.
[URL]http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/45231-ACA_Estimates.pdf[/URL]
The nonpartisan office now believes that the ACA will cost the government $5 billion less than projected in 2014 and $104 billion less for the 2015-2024 period. It also found "no clear evidence" that premiums will surge in 2015, noting that "enrollees in the future will be healthier, on average, than the smaller number of people who are obtaining such coverage in 2014." The agency estimated that the national average premium for individual silver policy plans would increase by $100 that year.
The CBO attributes the additional savings to government, relative to the CBO's last assessment from February 2014, to lower-than expected premiums, which in turn lowered the cost for exchange subsidies, and higher-than expected revenues from the excise tax on high-premium insurance plans.
"Despite projecting that slightly more people will receive insurance coverage through exchanges over the 2015–2024 period than they had anticipated previously," the report says. "CBO and JCT project that costs for exchange subsidies and related spending will be $164 billion (or 14 percent) below the previous projection, mainly because of the downward revision to expected exchange premiums." The office also predicted that plans offered in the exchanges will provide wider provider networks and higher reimbursement rates to providers as enrollment increases. "That pattern will put upward pressure on exchange premiums over the next couple of years, although CBO and JCT anticipate that the plans' characteristics will stabilize after 2016," it found.
The office also concluded that the law's so-called shock absorbers — reinsurance payments that are distributed to insurers that attract high-cost enrollees — "reduced exchange premiums this year by approximately 10 percent" and will "reduce premiums by smaller amounts in 2015 and 2016." CBO found additional savings in Medicaid, revising downward government spending per adult enrolled in the program. Ultimately, 12 million more nonelderly people will have health insurance in 2014 as a result of the law. Twenty-six million more "will be insured each year from 2017 through 2024 than would have been the case without the ACA," the CBO concluded.
