patrick.net

indigenous says

Libs

ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, NPR, Public Television, NYT, LAT, Salon

All of whom support all libertarian wars whenever possible. All of whom are careful to balance the interests of the general public with those of the financial services industry (the truth must lie somewhere in between, after all). None of whom mention that Obama has saved the economy from conservatism (for a short while longer). None of whom mention how ludicrously low taxes are on the wealthy and how little we've gotten for it economically. All of whom aired the birther conspiracy theory. All of whom carried the IRS and Benghazi nonsense. All of whom say very little about the Obama/Bush NSA monstrosity.

What liberal media?

indigenous says

And the Libertarians?

"alternative media"

smaulgld says

"alternative media"

Sactly

HydroCabron says

All of whom support all libertarian wars whenever possible.

Mutt

HydroCabron says

All of whom support all libertarian wars whenever possible. All of whom are careful to balance the interests of the general public with those of the financial services industry (the truth must lie somewhere in between, after all). None of whom mention that Obama has saved the economy from conservatism (for a short while longer). None of whom mention how ludicrously low taxes are on the wealthy and how little we've gotten for it economically. All of whom aired the birther conspiracy theory. All of whom carried the IRS and Benghazi nonsense. All of whom say very little about the Obama/Bush NSA monstrosity.

What liberal media?

What libertarian wars?

You point is well taken and is similar to mine- the news outlets are first and foremost mouthpieces for their corporate interests-the only difference is that the Dems and Rep have different paymasters.

In war and banking they both overlap as both parties are now war and banking parties so their respective media represent that bias.

HydroCabron says

All of whom aired the birther conspiracy theory. All of whom carried the IRS and Benghazi nonsense.

How was the IRS issue "nonsense"?

APOCALYPSEFUCKisShostikovitch says

Which one of all the media outlets cited here have demanded the restoration of Glass-Steagall? A

That's the point both parties and all media outlets are banking/war outlets

smaulgld says

Democrats control the networks with NBC CBS and ABC

Democrats control print/internet with NY Times, Wash Post Huff post, politico,

I really have no idea why anyone would think that NBC, CBS, and ABC, as well as the NYT are liberal. Maybe because they won't uncritically spout Benghazi theories? Rest assured, they covered that anyway, under the he said/she said disclaimer.

The New York Times sucked up to Bush through the first 4 years of the Iraq War, only ditching Judith Miller when it became too embarrassing to watch any more.

In 2003, the only major figures on cable/air who said "wait a minute" on Iraq were on Comedy Central (Bill Maher & Jon Stewart) and Phil Donahue on MSNBC. Two out of three of them were fired quickly. Donahue was told that the chairman of MSNBC felt that any gloom about the war would create unnecessary controversy and hurt the bottom line.

Nothing has changed.

They say nothing about Gitmo, the NSA, or the improving economic/deficit numbers. They give print and air time to climate-change deniers (who have as much support in the scientific community as moon-landing hoax theorists).

I would do away with Glass steagal too but with the caveat- banks can do what they want and if they fail they fail. This would make banks compete and banks EXPLCITLY state what they are going to do with your deposits.

Banks that want to gamble with your deposits will need to pay a higher rate of interest

Eliminate FDIC and people will pay far more attention to which institutions they entrust their money.

Right now there are only four banks that do what they want and pay no interest

smaulgld says

That's the point both parties and all media outlets are banking/war outlets

Please do just one thing for me: can you not retreat into "both parties are just organs of the blah blah blah..." argument for just today? Just for today, please?

You see the media as liberal, which it isn't. You peddle standard right-wing memes here. It's alright for you to just be a right-wing conservative.

The constant retreat into "both sides are the same" when things get a little warm for you is really depressing.

CIC stopped doing it. You're way, way smarter than he is: can you oblige us, too?

HydroCabron says

I really have no idea why anyone would think that NBC, CBS, and ABC, as well as the NYT are liberal. Maybe because they won't uncritically spout Benghazi theories? Rest assured, they covered that anyway, under the he said/she said disclaimer.

Liberal in inclination but corporate fascist in reality esp when it comes to supporting wars, NSA, Gitmo etc.

The real old school liberal vs conservative views are not aired. Indeed old school liberals and Taft Republicans are anti war anti foreign entanglements, whereas today both parties are war machines under the neo con and new democrat banners

HydroCabron says

Please do just one thing for me: can you not retreat into "both parties are just organs of the blah blah blah..." argument for just today? Just for today, please?

That is my point of view and I'm not going to drop it

APOCALYPSEFUCKisShostikovitch says

Here's the test. Which one of all the media outlets cited here have demanded the restoration of Glass-Steagall?

Even though it would have made ZERO difference regarding the bailouts. Glass Steagall does not regulate OTC derivatives.

What might have made a difference is the way the banks have become centralized since the 80s. Of course this would mean looking at the Fed oversight of this and your favorite NON meme the CRA.

indigenous says

Glass Steagall does not regulate OTC derivatives.

No but I would imagine it would prohibit/limit banks exposure to such financial products if they take deposits from individuals

smaulgld says

How was the IRS issue "nonsense"?

A low-level employee in Cincinnati legitimately demanded extra documentation from some Tea Party (as well as some liberal) groups, as to why they should be considered tax-exempt public service organizations.

The groups were, after some extra hassle, granted the status. Sounds as if he did his job; at worst, he was overzealous. I think the IRS is not doing enough to audit and double-check: I don't like the IRS, but having a toothless IRS just leads to Greece, where everyone cheats while thinking everyone else but them should pay taxes.

There is even a viable argument that the Tea Party groups should not be considered tax-exempt.

indigenous says

the Fed

All roads lead to Rome in these arguments.

It used to be "the Jews" or "the Freemasons" so I guess this is progress.

smaulgld says

No but I would imagine it would prohibit/limit banks exposure to such financial products if they take deposits from individuals

Not sure, my understanding is that some of the banks owned the investment banks.

The overarching problem is the centralizing of the banks and of course the bailout.

HydroCabron says

indigenous says

the Fed

All roads lead to Rome in these arguments.

It used to be "the Jews" or "the Freemasons" so I guess this is progress.

yup ceptin it is not a trope, unless of course you suffer from extreme myopia.

Oh, waaah!

In 2009, a progressive non-profit organization filed an application with the IRS seeking 501(c)3 tax status. That's the the tax status which, among other things, allows charitable organizations to collect tax-deductible contributions.

The group, whose name has been withheld because of pending administrative processes with the IRS, went through a three-year process of repeated questions and requests for additional documentation. The organization racked up $25,000 in legal fees complying with the requests, paid to lawyers who were baffled by the degree of scrutiny.

After three years of back and forth, they finally got their tax-exempt status in 2013 - though it was revoked just two months later. Because accountants for the group didn't realize they had to file tax returns during the unusually lengthy waiting period.

The organization, in its name and application materials, is clearly and explicitly progressive. This organization's experience shows not only that groups on the left and right were scrutinized, but that the entire IRS tax-exempt office procedures suggest something more along the lines of a bad idea than a big scandal.

In May 2013, it was discovered that several IRS branches, working under the leadership of the main tax exemption bureau, had created a list of "lookout list" of words in the names and applications of groups applying for 501(c)(3) and 501(c)(4) status - words that would trigger those applications for closer scrutiny. The conservative National Review correctly reports that the "lookout list" included terms like "tea party" but also "progressive" and "Occupy."

This was undoubtedly a sloppy shorthand method to decide which tax-exempt applications to look at more closely, methods that led to many progressive and conservative groups being unfairly scrutinized as well as many other groups not even engaged in politics. And as Alex Seitz-Wald at Salon notes, apparently the only organizations who had their tax applications denied during the period in question were progressive ones.

If you believe this is a huge deal, I question your professed neutrality/objectivity. Put down the Fox/Newsmax KoolAid jug.

HydroCabron says

A low-level employee in Cincinnati

They went through a lot of obsfucation for the act of a low level employee!
I don't think there should be an IRS, or one with millions of pages of rules, deductions etc.

If there must be a national tax it should be flat rate with no ability to deduct ANYTHING. Whatever your bracket that is what you owe and you eliminate all the enforcement expense and targeting.

That would mean no tea party or any political or religious tax exempt groups- after all why should they are home owners or any one get preferential treatment- it means the government tacitly approves of such activities.

indigenous says

The overarching problem is the centralizing of the banks and of course the bailout.

Correct, if banks that don't take deposits want to trade derivatives as their primary profit source, that should be ok.

If banks that want to take deposits want to do the same that should be OK as long as they disclose it -the depositors would clearly require a higher rate of return for the risk.

A healthy market for "safe" banks would develop if this were the case.

HydroCabron says

This organization's experience shows not only that groups on the left and right were scrutinized, but that the entire IRS tax-exempt office procedures suggest something more along the lines of a bad idea than a big scandal.

Exactly-My point is that having a discretionary IRS follow up on bad ideas is a major fault in government. There should be no discretion

smaulgld says

or any one get preferential treatment

Someone will always get preferential treatment.

Don't go pretending that, in a state of free-market utopia, life is fair.

smaulgld says

What libertarian wars?

Every libertarian I worked with - for some reason, our corporate offices are full of them, each talking about how they're the only libertarian in the village - supported the Afghanistan and Iraq wars. Every. Single. One.

Most (all?) libertarians were also opponents of gay marriage.

Sounds like hard-bitten conservatives in disguise, to me.

HydroCabron says

smaulgld says

or any one get preferential treatment

Someone will always get preferential treatment.

Don't go pretending that, in a state of free-market utopia, life is fair.

not pretending. Government should not create entitlements, loop holes favors etc and then apply their discretion in handing them out or granting them.

Its interesting that in your argument you like to TELL people what to argue "Don't" this and "don't" that.

Its as effective as someone telling you NOT to have the "unique" views that you have.

HydroCabron says

Every libertarian I worked with - for some reason, our corporate offices are full of them, each talking about how they're the only libertarian in the village - supported the Afghanistan and Iraq wars. Every. Single. One.

Most (all?) libertarians were also opponents of gay marriage.

Sounds like hard-bitten conservatives in disguise, to me.

Then that is what they are. Libertarians believe in the non aggression principle so they are really neo cons if they think the Iraq and Afghan wars were good ideas.

Re gay marriage the libertarian position is the state shouldn't tell ANY one who can get married and receive government benefits for having done so. So they would be against state sponsored hetero and homosexual marriage.

Seems clear if the state is going to give benefits to same sex couples they must extend those benefits to all couples

smaulgld says

Government should not create entitlements, loop holes favors etc and then apply their discretion in handing them out or granting them.

Eliminate government, and someone else will be creating entitlements, loopholes, and favors.

Conservatives and liberals don't deny this - they just differ on the appropriate level of government. Libertarians deny this, thereby enabling the most powerful to stomp on everyone.

HydroCabron says

Conservatives and liberals don't deny this - they just differ on the appropriate level of government. Libertarians deny this, thereby enabling the most powerful to stomp on everyone.

difference is the inability to avoid the impact of government lawful stomping (slavery, conscription, confiscation of property) Governments are far more tyrannical in impact than free markets

smaulgld says

Libertarians believe in the non aggression principle

Yes: no true Scotsman would have supported Iraq. I get it.

You need to talk to more of these libertarians. I suspect that by your definition there are very few real ones out there. I also suspect that you supported Iraq back in the day, since your wholesale swallowing of IRS and Benghazi indicates the usual favoritism toward extreme right-wing outlets prevalent in all libertarians.

If you really are not a neocon, maybe it's time to stop calling yourself a libertarian, since there are far more secretly-neocon-type libertarians than there are of your kind.

HydroCabron says

stop calling yourself a libertarian,

there you go again!
Yes the world would be a better place if we just adopted your commands on how to think and interpret

smaulgld says

Seems clear if the state is going to give benefits to same sex couples they must extend those benefits to all couples

I thought it was about extending the benefits received by heterosexual couples to same-sex couples.

What was I thinking?

HydroCabron says

smaulgld says

Seems clear if the state is going to give benefits to same sex couples they must extend those benefits to all couples

I thought it was about extending the benefits received by heterosexual couples to same-sex couples.

What was I thinking?

Lol that's what i meant!
If the state is going to give benefits to opposite sex couples they have to give them to same sex couples

The statement works either way phrased but same sex couples dont get the same benefits as opposite sex couples

smaulgld says

I would do away with Glass steagal too but with the caveat- banks can do what they want and if they fail they fail

Glass-Steagal has already been done away with. It was the banking regulation of the Roosevelt era which prevented banks from running casinos.

If you let banks fail, and depositors suck eggs (buyer beware), you will be presented with a social-welfare problem. I am highly sympathetic to ending deposit protection for anyone, including the usual widows and orphans who always seem to come up in these considerations, but there will be problems on the other side, and private charity has never been sufficient in the United States to cover these people.

Do you want to just let the losers die? I don't know that I do.

As for the usual line about government tyranny: I just like to add that the government is also the greatest guarantor of liberty. Leaded gasoline (and the attendant high crime rates) is now gone, thanks to the government. The air is now far cleaner than it was in the 1970s, thanks to the government (Yay!). I call clean air "liberty".

Yep "good" government in the Ralph Nader mode produces societal benefits sometimes
Usually however the larger govt is the more inept and corrupt it is

Re government as guarantor of liberty
That is in the preamble of US constitutions "to secure the blessings of Liberty"
Government is like fire useful if controlled

Btw how is Bengazi a "right wing" issue?
The facts and circumstances around that incident are not about a political philosophy rather about partisan views as to the interpretation of those facts and circumstances

sbh says

smaulgld says

Usually however the larger govt is the more inept and corrupt it is

Ya know, "larger" is an inept criticism. A small government can be wasteful and oppressive and unfair. In a basketball game it is within the context of rules and structure that excellence in play is constituted. Without structure all you'd need is an 8' troglodyte to goal-tend every shot. Libertarians owe their very identity to the government they despise, much in the same way pacifists owe their security to military protections.

Correct re inept small govt too
Every form of govt or no govt has its downsides
The larger the govt however the larger the corruption schemes and greater damage it can do
Not sure if there are offsetting benefits for larger

Your final points are well taken
Most of the debate is in matter of degree not absolutes

smaulgld says

Then that is what they are. Libertarians believe in the non aggression principle so they are really neo cons if they think the Iraq and Afghan wars were good ideas.

Re gay marriage the libertarian position is the state shouldn't tell ANY one who can get married and receive government benefits for having done so. So they would be against state sponsored hetero and homosexual marriage.

Seems clear if the state is going to give benefits to same sex couples they must extend those benefits to all couples

Sactly, although not put as diplomatically as I would have.

smaulgld says

Correct re inept small govt too

Every form of govt or no govt has its downsides

The larger the govt however the larger the corruption schemes and greater damage it can do

Not sure if there are offsetting benefits for larger

Don't undersell anarchy Somalia is more hospitable than the media would have you believe.

The more centralized the more corrupt, to answer the question absolutely regarding corruption being worse at the larger scale.