patrick.net

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After three years of back and forth, they finally got their tax-exempt status in 2013 - though it was revoked just two months later.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.

Call it Crazy says

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 spout the narrative that you liberals subscribe to, which is why you don't recognize or see it... Simple!

Hydrocabron's point is they don't spout it when it interfers with the war making and banking propaganda that comes from the Democratic sponsors. Wants me to stop pointing out that democrats and republicans are both corrupt.

The Professor says

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?

YES! Lets suspend reality on Sundays from now on!

Hey, I don't care if he argues a point he believes in - although I'll make fun of that conclusion anyway, because it's horseshit.

But he doesn't even believe both sides are the same, so it would be nice if he dropped the convenient fiction that he does.

HydroCabron says

But he doesn't even believe both sides are the same

Good nanny state example of telling others what to think, or believe.

I am glad I have people like Hydro Cabron to let me know what I believe.

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.

You are not working with Libertarians.

mell says

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.

You are not working with Libertarians.

Like having a dog and punishing it for not meowing like a cat like all the other dogs you might know.

The Professor says

HydroCabron says

But he doesn't even believe both sides are the same, so it would be nice if he dropped the convenient fiction that he does.

The parties are distinctly different, like coke and pepsi; name your poison.

The point I, and I assume most "both parties are the same proclaimers", is that we really have no choice at the voting booth because both parties are beholden to special interests and no matter who we "choose", business will go on as usual.

Tweedle Dee or Tweedle Dum, get it?

You are not allowed to believe that. In fact you don't believe that
Now please be a fox watching rush limbaugh neo con republican so I can use my best criticism on you. :-)

smaulgld says

Like having a dog and punishing it for not meowing like a cat like all the other dogs you might know.

Sactly

Its one thing to create straw men and knock them down
Quite another talent to transform real people into strawmen
I guess if you have only one line of argumentation...

smaulgld says

I guess if you have only one line of argumentation...

Heheheh: "Fed bad. Fed bad. Fed bad..."

HydroCabron says

smaulgld says

I guess if you have only one line of argumentation...

Heheheh: "Fed bad. Fed bad. Fed bad..."

I forgot the misplaced humor line of attack
I dont see any mention of the fed in this thread

HydroCabron says

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.

You don't know much. Do you?
Here is a little song for you.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KohtsEmWY2w

gsr says

HydroCabron says

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.

You don't know much. Do you?

Here is a little song for you.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KohtsEmWY2w

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-08-12/irs-tried-failed-to-repair-lois-lerner-hard-drive.html

Stop lying to yourself.

gsr says

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.

You don't know much. Do you?

Here is a little song for you.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KohtsEmWY2w

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-08-12/irs-tried-failed-to-repair-lois-lerner-hard-drive.html

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2014/08/27/by-the-way-lois-lerners-blackberry-was-destroyed-during-irs-investigation-n1883972

gsr says

You don't know much. Do you?

Here is a little song for you.

You sound grumpy.

A tax cut on wealthy earners might cheer you up!

HydroCabron says

You sound grumpy.

A tax cut on wealthy earners might cheer you up!

You can pass on your kool-aid instead.

HydroCabron says

gsr says

You don't know much. Do you?

Here is a little song for you.

You sound grumpy.

A tax cut on wealthy earners might cheer you up!

Tax cuts for everyone!

sbh says

Precisely. What else need they do in order to be re-elected? This ain't about
governing a nation, this is about the identity of a Party. Governance, we don't
need no steenking governance, that's for the black guy to try and for us to
shoot down.

How is the Democrat's brand for "governance" going these days?

- They can't run a website despite spending millions
- They can't run the VA above a 3rd world level
- They politicize institutions like the IRS to target their political enemies
- Can't run cities without going into bankruptcy

When 2016 comes around, I think many Americans will gladly pull the lever for the party that (at least says) it will limit the amount of money and control government can take or inflict on our daily lives.

Seriously, who do you think will be up for MOAR GOVERNMENT after the debacle of the last 6 years?