Just watched Maher, the Republican channeling income inequality and poverty rates.

[joshcryer]

So many liberals are going to fall for this tripe in 2016.

The Republicans don't care about income inequality or poverty. They are liars. They are tricksters. They are ratfucking pieces of crap. It is a fact. Real talk people. The Republicans are going to try to pull this narrative in 2016. Don't buy it. They are liars.

[JonLP24]

1. I don't know how people continue to do so

Private business profits is the only thing they're saying.

If they were honest I support private business profits. That regulation hurts private business profits. This government service gets in the way of private businesses that would offer less of the same thing for higher prices. That's all it is.

Cutting the safety net = private business profits

Keystone isn't about jobs, its about oil business profits

[joshcryer]

2. They're a dying party.

They can't admit that regulation is good, so they are trying everything they can. In this case they're calling for more deregulation to solve the poverty and income gap. Libertarians / Republicans blame the government for the concentration of wealth, because at least Libertarians believe that the pure and free markets would never result in monopolies. That the government gives monopolies the leverage that they need to become powerful.

Unfortunately, some naive, and manipulated leftists believe that the government is responsible for making monopolies more powerful. While true to a minor extent, it's not the full truth. Monopolies have so much power because they leverage everything else, particularly the markets, which the government has minimal control over. It's literally the exact opposite of the libertarian narrative.

[JonLP24]

3. It just depends on who the monopoly is

Post office is the most obvious example but that one doesn't bother me. They offer low rates to rural communities and businesses that rely on shipping to deliver packages where they need to be.

If Libertarians feel that way then they never heard of natural monopolies. Policies either indirectly or directly affect a certain industry one way or the other. It depends. I don't worry about it depending on the policy, unregulated capitalism -- we already saw what happened so many times

Unaffordable tax cuts and wars, a major recession, and soaring health-care costs - fueled in part by the commitment of George W Bush's administration to giving drug companies free rein in setting prices, even with government money at stake - quickly transformed a huge surplus into record peacetime deficits.

The remedies to the US deficit follow immediately from this diagnosis: put America back to work by stimulating the economy; end the mindless wars; rein in military and drug costs; and raise taxes, at least on the very rich.

But the right will have none of this, and instead is pushing for even more tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy, together with expenditure cuts in investments and social protection that put the future of the US economy in peril and that shred what remains of the social contract.

Meanwhile, the US financial sector has been lobbying hard to free itself of regulations, so that it can return to its previous, disastrously carefree, ways.

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2011/07/20117714241429793.html

Libertarians seem to take more of a 'freedom' view while Republicans seem to be more interested in their bottom line, whoever it is funding them.

Take something like a free trade agreement, it opens up competition for other businesses in a global economy but the problem is labor isn't global so you can begin to picture how the income gap increased.

[joshcryer]

8. The post office is barely a monopoly, if that.

The post office is funded by private fees, the only thing that makes them a "monopoly" is that addresses are generally legislated and required by local law. ie, you can't own or rent a "home" that doesn't have an address that the post office can deliver to. But that "monopoly" is absurd because FedEx and UPS also needed addresses to deliver stuff to.

All in all the USPS is literally the best of the best. A corporation ran to deliver goods without profiting CEOs or investors. If only FedEx or UPS were as efficient. In fact, FedEx or UPS utilize the USPS in many cases to deliver goods. They basically pay the USPS to do the job for them!

The remedies to the US deficit follow immediately from this diagnosis: put America back to work by stimulating the economy; end the mindless wars; rein in military and drug costs; and raise taxes, at least on the very rich.

No question, I support all of what you've said here. Though some may frown on a concern for the US deficit, of course. Stimulus, and ending the MIC and drug war is the answer. It's actually pretty simple when framed that way. I admit, politically, this is a mountain. But it can be a molehill if we fight.

[JonLP24]

10. I have not a single problem at all with USPS being a monopoly

The problem with monopolies is they jack up the prices because of the lack of competition or market share. Monopolies that concern me are private insurers, there are not that many out there
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/economic-intelligence/2013/04/12/after-affordable-care-act-new-antitrust-laws-needed-in-health-care

All the post office was the first example that came up in affected a certain industry with policy. A good example are professional sports leagues who received favorable antitrust protections especially in the 60s-80s they're above monopolies a cartel but they way that makes them very damaging is since there is large demand for cities to host a professional sports franchise but low, fixed supply of teams it gives them significant bargaining power over local governments for sweetheart subsidies. It would likely take an act of Congress to get a handle of that since from an antitrust perspective, taxpayers cannot be considered consumers.

[joshcryer]

14. I liken the USPS as a service, not a monopoly.

It is arguably a monopoly in that it has the lowest rates, and such, but I think it is a natural monopoly, in the interest of citizens.

As far as the ACA, there will naturally be public, non-profit, single payer systems that fill that natural monopoly role, so it's not a big deal for me.

[sendero]

11. "Libertarians seem to take more of a 'freedom' view ".....

... and their "freedom view" led to the repeal of Glass-Stegall and the passage of the Commodity Futures Modernization Act, which in tandem has led to the bankster mess we have today.

They talk a good game but they are loathe to admit that their world view is just as fucked as anyone elses, some regulation is Actually Necessary.

[JonLP24]

12. I mean they go beyond that

in favoring policies who the private business owner can allow into it, work who he wants, add a wheelchair ramp if he wants to, etc

[sendero]

13. I've been watching and debating..

... libertarians for a long time and yes the traits you describe fall under the "deregulation" mantra, i.e. nobody should have to do anything they don't want to. In a perfect Libertarian world if you don't want to hire someone because they are black, that would be your right.

As far as I'm concerned they are even more delusional as a group than Republicans, even though if you listen to their surface arguments they are very appealing.

One of their overarching beliefs, that the captains of industry are by-definition moral and upright because they wouldn't be captains otherwise, is demonstrably false.

[pampango]

4. "Republicans don't care about income inequality or poverty." I disagree. They support both.

How did Maher try to show that republicans want to reduce income inequality and poverty? I would think it would be quite a challenge for a republican to trot out the same old tax breaks for 'job creators', deregulation, killing Obamacare or any other of their pet policies and spin them as combatting income inequality.

Unless they just try to blast Obama and offer no alternatives or any proof that their alternatives would reduce income inequality, I think they would be better served to leave the whole inequality issue alone since it will come back to bite them.

[joshcryer]

7. I said it in my OP, they think the markets are the solution.

But that is objectively false.

I'm not saying that they aren't sincere in their convoluted beliefs, I am saying their approach is simply, objectively, wrong. The Libertarians and Republicans can whinge day and night about government sponsored monopolies, they are wrong. The markets are the problem.

[Fred Sanders]

5. It would not matter if the mass media did not do all the heavy lifting for their all lie agenda.

Lies mean little if you can not spread them far and wide and have someone at their backs when attacked.

[Vinca]

6. All I can figure is Fiorina is trying to separate herself from the pack.

She hasn't got a chance in hell if she enters the primary and if that particular point of view comes out during a GOP debate she'll be booed off the stage. No one will fall for it because it won't get beyond the early days of the primary. A GOP candidate appears weak if they exhibit anything remotely close to compassion. They must hate anything nonwhite, nonChristian, nonwealthy or nonhetero.

[Autumn]

9. Umm news flash for you. Liberals don't buy into anything republicans say.

We are a little to smart for that which is WHY we are Liberals. No Liberal will buy into their tripe in 2016. Or any other year.

[joshcryer]

15. White "liberals" do.

News flash. White males in particular, especially younger white males, love the Libertarian message.

I merely pointed out the "populist" message a Republican claimed on Maher. She would've come off as Warren if people didn't know she was a Republican. Give it a few weeks, post her exact quotes, attribute them to Warren, and you easily get 100 recs here.

[Autumn]

16. libertarians are not Liberals. Bit of a difference in those two.

Last edited Sun Jan 11, 2015, 11:47 AM - Edit history (1)

And Liberals can tell the difference. We don't take a candidate on their words, we look at the actions. Which explains the problem Hillary has. I find it interesting that some "democrats" don't know the difference between libertarians and Liberals.

[Bluenorthwest]

18. Warren was a Republican for 25, 30 years. That she might sound like one is not really surprising

given that fact. Warren is not some socialist who just wandered in from the Village with leaflets and some daisies in her hair. She and Republicans are going to have some common traits, that's just common sense.
So trying to claim liberals are libertarians to explain why a former Republican millionaire sounds like a current Republican millionaire seems like misplaced attentions and incorrect definitions to me.

[Bluenorthwest]

17. That was Carly Fiorina, who lost the only election she's ever been in by 10 points after spending

huge sums of money including many of her own personal millions. She was beaten badly by Barbara Boxer.

She's an anti choice, anti gay hack, a right wing Corporate greed machine and perhaps the very worst sort of candidate any Party could nominate at this time in history.