Hunter at DKos, on Charles Koch's foolish response to Buffett: "How WONDERFULLY Dickensian!"

[highplainsdem]

This is about the inane statement Koch sent to National Review:

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/275099/koch-responds-buffetts-call-tax-hikes-daniel-foster#

"Much of what the government spends money on does more harm than good; this is particularly true over the past several years with the massive uncontrolled increase in government spending. I believe my business and non-profit investments are much more beneficial to societal well-being than sending more money to Washington." — Charles G. Koch, Chairman and CEO, Koch Industries, Inc.


Hunter's accurate take on it:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/08/20/1008799/-Charles-Koch:-Warren-Buffet-is-mean,-government-is-too-big,-and-get-off-my-gold-plated-lawn

How wonderfully Dickensian. No, seriously: you could not ask for a better example of Victorian self-indulgent moralism, or a better summation of the eternal cry of the fantastically well-off. It is not the role of government to feed these pitiful slobs, or help them find work, or protect them if they get ill. It is up to my own philanthropy, and I shall decide whom to save, and how, and when, or whether to save none at all, and fuck you all very much if you think otherwise.

Before those nasty social programs instituted by the government, why were people homeless, sick or hungry in such large numbers? We have all seen the photos and read the statistics, but surely, the wealthy families of those past eras simply financed private efforts to care for all those poor, just as Koch himself has done (no doubt putting the majority of his time and efforts into philanthropic efforts, and not merely self-interested political ones). Before government rudely intervened in decades past with rules banning the indentured servitude of the working class, in railroads and mills and mines of our nation, surely the wealthy captains of industry treated those workers fairly, and with utmost regard for their safety, just as Mr. Koch does (no doubt himself a champion of workers' rights, and not a man devoted to stripping those rights, crippling worker unions, and repealing regulations in an obsessive, all-encompassing effort to greedily squeeze every last penny of profits for himself and his companies at the expense of workers and even entire communities).

I see now why the crabby Mr. Koch, despite his vast fortune, does not spend much time advocating for his positions in public. He apparently does a gigantically piss-poor job of it, which is why he pays others handsomely to do it instead. It is class warfare by proxy: you can't possibly expect the rich to fight their battles themselves, can you? That would be gauche.

I, however, would love if we could hear more from Koch. Much, much more, please. Throughout history, it has always been a fine idea for the royal class to lecture the peasants on how lucky the poor have it and how thankful they should be for whatever little scraps of food and attentiveness the nobility deigns to give them: nothing has ever gone wrong with this, and so I heartily encourage Mr. Koch to do it loudly and often.

[murielm99]

1. Yes, only the DESERVING poor get help.

Koch and his ilk will decide which of the poor are deserving.

I have always loved Scrooge's response to the men collecting for charity at Christmas: "Are there no prisons? Are there no workhouses?"

I can just hear Koch uttering those classic syllables.

[Kennah]

2. Enough Scrooge bashing

At least he didn't inherit his money, like the Kochs.

[murielm99]

4. I'm not bashing the guy, only quoting him.

Anyway, Scrooge cleaned up his act.

[neverforget]

3. Spot on take of the spoiled rotten rich

[OffWithTheirHeads]

5. I have simple tastes. I just want to chop his fucking head off!

Simple, working class slob that I am.

[Selatius]

8. You can do it in style, apparently. Check this out:

[xxqqqzme]

6. I think that

"...massive uncontrolled increase in government spending..." is called unprovoked invasion and occupation of another country. I also think he has reaped 10X over benefits of the "...massive uncontrolled increase in government spending...".

Give it back asshole!

[David in Canada]

7. Question About His "Philanthropy"

As the Brothers Koch are both renowned for their so-called "philanthropy" albeit given with the proviso of their names emblazoned with huge lettering to stroke their overblown narcissistic egos, I wonder how much of that philanthropy would suddenly disappear once their war on workers were to be completed.

For instance, they provide a lot of money to fund various PBS programs. However, if PBS' funding were to be gutted in a future Republican administration, does anyone seriously think they will pony up more cash to keep it afloat? Is it possible, if not likely, that a main factor in their funding for PBS and various social causes to provide a narrative that government spending in those areas are not necessary and thus serve as an impetus for slashing funding and subsequently killing them off? If the tax code were to be made (more) regressive and the financial benefits of tax-deductible contributions removed, would their philanthropic efforts similarly wither away?