Koch brothers exposed - free to view.

smackababy

Lifer
Oct 30, 2008
27,024
79
86
I haven't even watched this video, but just the mention of the Koch brothers has me foaming at the mouth in rage!
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,904
6,787
126
Money is speech. Corporations are people. The supreme court put a knife in the heart of America and the Koch brothers can legally twist it. The focus of everyone who loves his country should be to change those two laws to change how your election choices are selected. Nobody will do this but an enlightened electorate.
 

BurnItDwn

Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
26,357
1,870
126
I think we should divest the koch brothers from earth and instead invest them into the the beautiful lands of venus.
 

Spungo

Diamond Member
Jul 22, 2012
3,217
2
81
Corporations are people, my friend. What kind of people? You guessed it. Frank Stallone.


This video is almost unwatchable. It's so boring and slow. It'll say Koch heads want to remove minimum wage, then it counters this by saying how poor someone is. That's not a valid argument. Hating on rich people is not an argument either. A valid argument would be taking a trip to another country that has higher minimum wages and show that it hasn't destroyed their economy. The way Michael Moore makes films is the proper way to do this, and I'm pretty sure he has done that exact thing.

Also, some of the things in the video are factually incorrect, or at least partially incorrect, sort of. The video claims Social Security is not bankrupt because social security has a surplus of 2 trillion dollars. That's not completely true. When someone like you or I say we have $100 worth of government bonds, we mean that we have ownership of bonds that already exist, and these bonds can be sold in the open market. This is not how Social Security and various state pensions do accounting. When Social Security says there is a 2 trillion dollar surplus, what they mean is that they have government promises for 2 trillion dollars worth of bonds, so basically Social Security is holding a promise of a promise for cash. What's the difference? From an accounting perspective, the difference is huge.

This can best be explained by giving scenarios. Real bonds (what people think Social Security holds) vs fake bonds (what they actually hold).
Real Bonds:
If Social Security held real bonds, they would hold federal government debt that already exists. Suppose the federal government debt is 17 trillion dollars and Social Security needs money. No problem. When holding normal bonds, Social Security would be able to sell bonds in the open market to get the cash. Federal government debt would not be affected in any way.
Fake Bonds:
Suppose the federal government debt is 17 trillion. When Social Security needs money, they can't sell bonds in the open market because they don't hold any real bonds. To get that money, Social Security needs to go to the federal government. The federal government buys back some of the fake bonds held by Social Security. Our government hasn't had a meaningful surplus in half a century, so where does this money come from? It comes from new debt. To cash in that 2 trillion dollars, this can only be done if the federal government issues 2 trillion in new bonds, so the national debt goes up to 19 trillion.

I know it sounds absolutely retarded, and there's no way any sane person would think this was a good idea, but that really is how the system works. Lots of state pensions work the exact same way. Instead of the state contributing cash to the pension fund, the state contributes bonds that can't be sold in the open market. When the pension fund starts redeeming those bonds, it forces the state to issue huge amounts of debt, which leads to a budget crisis. This kind of fraudulent accounting is why Illinois is in deep trouble right now. Interestingly, zero people have gone to jail for accounting fraud.
 
Last edited:

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
33,707
17,331
136
As much as I dislike the Koch brothers and what they stand for, I was not impressed with this documentary. Honestly I thought I was watching a fox piece in bizarro land. The arguements were all appeals to emotions with little facts sprinkled on but nothing I'd consider a good counter arguement. The portion of the documentary where they talk about welfare and minimum wage are a perfect example. The kochs want to get rid of minimum wage (they don't really get into why other than sound bites), the "counter argument"? Showing how many houses the kochs have and how much they cost and showing how long it would take someone on minimum wage to make what the kochs make in one day.

The documentary was piss poor and had little substance, definitely not worthy of being on PBS (compare it to the documentary called "bush's war").

This is the kind of shit the right would eat up if it was about someone they hated, like Obama or soros, all emotional filler with little substance.

Having said that, the film does do a good job showing how the Koch brothers work to acheive their goals and it highlights just how diverse their reach is.

Spungo, I'm sorry but you are incorrect on how ss works. This article explains it clearly (and it addresses the increase in retirees as well).

http://www.forbes.com/sites/johntharvey/2014/08/14/social-security-cannot-go-bankrupt/
 

Thebobo

Lifer
Jun 19, 2006
18,574
7,672
136
The documentary was piss poor and had little substance, definitely not worthy of being on PBS (compare it to the documentary called "bush's war").

Actually the one that was supposed to be on PBS is called Citizen Koch and is not free to watch yet :(.
 

Spungo

Diamond Member
Jul 22, 2012
3,217
2
81
Spungo, I'm sorry but you are incorrect on how ss works. This article explains it clearly (and it addresses the increase in retirees as well).

http://www.forbes.com/sites/johntharvey/2014/08/14/social-security-cannot-go-bankrupt/
I get the feeling nobody fully understands Social Security. This is why we get multiple versions of how it works, all of them contradict each other, and different parts of the government say different things.

Example: president Obama agrees with my version of how Social Security works. You might remember Obama saying that freezing the debt limit would cause Social Security payments to stop. That statement is only true if Social Security's cash flow relies on issuance of new debt, which is what I stated. If Social Security held actual bonds that can be sold in the open market, Obama's statement would not be true. Of course, Obama is a politician, so it's also possible that he's lying. This is the same guy who said that raising the debt does not raise the debt (yes he actually said this).

http://www.forbes.com/sites/merrill...-the-2-6-trillion-social-security-trust-fund/
(article asking why the debt ceiling would cause social security payments to stop)
To find more articles on this issue, google the words "borrow from social security".
 

Greenman

Lifer
Oct 15, 1999
22,436
6,539
136
Those guys need to marry Sara Palin, the outrage from the left would be beyond epic.

I didn't watch the propaganda piece but I assume who ever made it expected others to pay him for the pleasure of viewing it, why did that change? Did he suddenly become a humanitarian and decide that the public having this information was more important than personal gain? Or is it that most of the world decided it wasn't worth paying a nickle for?
 

LTC8K6

Lifer
Mar 10, 2004
28,520
1,576
126
I didn't realize its been free for a couple of months now on U Tube.
The part about the school boards influence is especially depressing.

Enjoy if its possible :\

KOCH BROTHERS EXPOSED 2014 EDITION [Full Film]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c9NAiojPzro

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2014/05/reid-and-pelosi-go-to-the-movies.php

Greenwald’s work is laughably bad, and we had fun ridiculing it when it first came out. We wrote here about the first segment of “Exposed,” noting among other things Greenwald’s shadowy financing by unnamed left-wing foundations and individuals. In that video, Greenwald sent people to the Koch brothers’ homes and rang the doorbell, demanding to interrogate one or the other of the brothers. We wrote more about this disreputable tactic, and about Greenwald’s own glass houses, here. In this post, we demolished Greenwald’s claim that the Keystone Pipeline is all about the Kochs–Greenwald was among the first to peddle that lie. (Do you suppose this thoroughly-discredited claim will be included in the updated version of his video, and cheered by the Democrats on Tuesday? I suspect so.) Here, we mocked Greenwald’s assertion that all proposals for Social Security reform somehow emanate from the Koch brothers–including those backed by many Democrats.
 

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
37,598
33,319
136
I get the feeling nobody fully understands Social Security. This is why we get multiple versions of how it works, all of them contradict each other, and different parts of the government say different things.

Example: president Obama agrees with my version of how Social Security works. You might remember Obama saying that freezing the debt limit would cause Social Security payments to stop. That statement is only true if Social Security's cash flow relies on issuance of new debt, which is what I stated. If Social Security held actual bonds that can be sold in the open market, Obama's statement would not be true. Of course, Obama is a politician, so it's also possible that he's lying. This is the same guy who said that raising the debt does not raise the debt (yes he actually said this).

http://www.forbes.com/sites/merrill...-the-2-6-trillion-social-security-trust-fund/
(article asking why the debt ceiling would cause social security payments to stop)
To find more articles on this issue, google the words "borrow from social security".
You sure he didn't say raising the debt ceiling doesn't raise the debt?