Comments on: The Statist Media

By: Militant Libertarian » The Statist Media

Militant Libertarian » The Statist Media — Sat, 03 Nov 2012 04:06:49 +0000

[...] The Agitator [...]

By: Deoxy

Deoxy — Wed, 31 Oct 2012 22:09:51 +0000

You know, the guys who pay 15% federal tax on their 30-millionth dollar, while a self-employed person like me pays over 30% federal tax on my First taxable dollar!

A company has $100 in profit that they decide to pay out to shareholders. After taxes, the shareholder is left with $55.25.

How? Well, first the company pays 35% of the money to the government. Then the individual pays 15% of what’s left (barring those evil tax shelters, of course).

So, if a guy is paying 15% on his “30-millionth dollar”, his share of profits from companies he owned shares in was $54,298,642.53, and the government $24,298,642.53 of that, or just shy of 45%.

If the media (and the rest of society) hadn’t let Bush get away with all he did, Obama would have been starting out at a much diminished place for his statist power grabs.

That was “letting him get away with it”? Wow, you and I remember media behaviour for those 8 years very VERY differently.

Compare and contrast: media treatment of Bush/Bush vs media treatment of Clinton/Obama.

There is no comparison. The standards are night and day different.

Now, you can certainly protest that the stuff that play GOTCHA on with Republicans is the wrong stuff, and that the more statist elements get less bad treatment for Republicans than the less statist (or especially the rare NON-statist) stuff, but that doesn’t change the basic facts:

The media is pro-Democrat, anti-Republican. Republicans get less bad treatment when the act like Democrats. The Democrat party platform is statist. (To be fair, the Republican party platform is only “less statist”.)

What’s the test of statist vs Democrat? When a Democrat does something non-statist (yes, it happens, just very rarely), the media (mostly) plays along. That makes it easy to see which priority is higher for them.

By: MikeV

MikeV — Wed, 31 Oct 2012 21:42:25 +0000

I know Obama promised not to prosecute medical marijuana, but explaining what has actually happened leaves you wondering.

Did he just let the people already in place at DEA and other agencies continue to do what they felt like doing, or did he actually tell them to prosecute medicinal marijuana despite his campaign promises?

Did they ignore his directions by putting a bunch of rules in place that had the effect of carrying on as before? That might explain why you see them prosecuting medical marijuana dispensaries within 1000 feet of a school.

Maybe a combination of bureaucratic undermining by the DEA and not really caring about the issue on the part of Obama is the closest to the truth.

By: Nick T.

Nick T. — Wed, 31 Oct 2012 20:31:14 +0000

Sorry for my harsh tone.
I do think such talk is nonsense, and serves to rationalize or defend a broken system and unjust decisions by our leaders. People love to call non-duopolists and/or libertarians “purists” but that’s mainly because people have changed the meaning fo the word “pragmatic” in the political context to mean making decisions that aren’t unpopular.
Politically popular and pragmatic are barely even related (it’s unpopular to cut military spending, but sustaining it at these levels is impractical and stupid). But even if they overlapped a great deal, we need to make arguments about the issues themselves and expect our leaders to actually lead and do what is right. We obviously expect them to consider polls, but we shouldn’t say it’s ok when they follow polls and then support immoral, destructive policies.
More to the specific point, however, Obama was very clear about not prosecuting medicinal marijuana in his campaing and then he won like a million states, and medicinal marijuana polls at around 75% approval. There is no way to defend his behavior here even through the eyes of the most craven, finger-in-the-wind poll watcher.

By: Larry L. Stuler

Larry L. Stuler — Wed, 31 Oct 2012 20:13:08 +0000

The media has always been pro-statist, regardless of political persuasion. The biggest propaganda put forth by the media concerns the income tax and the Supreme Court decisions concerning the 16th Amendment. Several Supreme Court decisions were rendered: Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 240 U.S. 1 (1916), Stanton v. Baltic Mining, 240 US 103 (1916), Peck & Co. v. Lowe, 247 US 165 (1918), etc.
The Supreme Court decisions above all inform everyone that no new power of taxation was granted to the federal government by the 16th Amendment. These decisions all inform everyone that the federal government always had the power to tax income from the beginning. Since no new power of taxation was granted to the federal government by the 16th Amendment and the federal government was held to always have had the power to tax income, then the revenue that’s being derived by the federal government from an income tax must come from one of the regulated commerce jurisdictions granted to the federal government by the Constitution – therefore, this revenue must come from foreign commerce, interstate commerce, or Indian commerce. After all, generating income is a commercial activity.
The Supreme Court ruled exactly that in Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189 (1920), where the Court stated the following: “The 16th Amendment must be construed in connection with the taxing clauses of the original Constitution and the effect attributed to them before the Amendment was adopted.”.
The Declaration of Independence is the organic law of the land and it declares that “all men are created equal”. The Constitution acknowledges this by only granting the federal government jurisdiction over foreign commerce, interstate commerce, and trade with the Indians. The federal government is made up of other Americans and since “all men are created equal” it has no jurisdiction over intrastate commerce, which is, simply put, human action.
Any court action concerning internal revenue is brought under the statute at title 28 USC , “Judiciary and Judicial Procedure”, Chapter 85, “District Courts; jurisdiction”, section 1340, “Internal revenue; customs duties” based upon revenue from the collection of duties on imports.
Internal revenue is foreign commerce. How can that apply to an American? The Form SS-5 that one uses to apply for a S.S.# is actually a federal employment form. You became a “taxpayer” which is defined as a member of the Merchant Marine (title 26 CFR 2.1-1(a)(5)) who is involved in foreign commerce. Go to LLSTULER.wordpress.com to read the entire Social Security Scam.

By: MikeV

MikeV — Wed, 31 Oct 2012 19:37:58 +0000

#47 Didn’t realize that there was a thread purity guideline in place, and that the possible political motives of a politician were a forbidden topic.

By: Nick T.

Nick T. — Wed, 31 Oct 2012 19:03:18 +0000

#45 Who was talking about Obama’s political strategy here? I like to come here because people discuss actual policy implicatiions and results. The only time politicians get brought up is to explain why they are hypocrites or fools. This is not a place for horse race discussion nonsense. Let’s all please try to keep it that way.

By: divadab

divadab — Wed, 31 Oct 2012 17:58:06 +0000

@37 John Jenkins – “Carry Interest” was originally applied to venture capital Partnerships where the partners had their own personal capital at risk in the venture. They were also jointly and severally liable for the liabilities of their partners.

The way it worked was that the client investors of the venture got paid first, and then the partners received their “carry” (carried interest) as a capital gain. This reflected both the partners’ return on their own investment, and recognition that their risk was greater than other investors because they got paid last.

Now all the firms are incorporated, and are partnerships in name only since the investment firm recipients are employees who receive annual income from managed funds disguised as capital gain-tax rateable carry. It’s a complete fraud and that it still is official US government policy is scandalous.

By: Jesse Porter

Jesse Porter — Wed, 31 Oct 2012 17:31:40 +0000

Berserk Husein Oromney speak the same sentences out of two mouths, or from both sides of the same mouthpiece. There is absolutely no philosophical difference between the demublicans and the relublicrats.

By: MikeV

MikeV — Wed, 31 Oct 2012 17:25:39 +0000

If nothing else, Obama is showing more common sense than USA Today when it comes to speaking out on the state ballot initiatives to legalize marijuana.

He has no practical reason to get involved, and doing so could only hurt him. If the initiatives go overwhelmingly for legalizing marijuana, it leaves him free to jump in front of the parade. If they go against, he can just shut up and go with the status quo.

Not saying I admire him, but as a political strategy, staying out of it makes the most sense.

By: Boyd Durkin

Boyd Durkin — Wed, 31 Oct 2012 17:25:31 +0000

We have to remember that modern newspapers are relics of the Progressive Era…

And journalism/broadcast schools are still teaching it that way (apparently). I was part of a 5-person focus group post-debate for a local Senate seat. The moderator was about 30, male, and as politically traditional as you can get. Issues are either covered completely by the Democrat or the Republican party. That’s it. Anything else is just extremist crazy-talk.

One question was: What’s the biggest issue for you? My answer was “war”. I’m a human being first (American is down the list) and I can’t put “curb side recycling” above “killing brown kids on the other side of the planet”. Didn’t go over well as Republicans and Democrats both agree that killing brown kids on the other side of the planet is just necessary. So, media agrees…and everyone else is crazy.

Interesting racket, but I’d rather have spent the night talking to hookers and unlicensed manicurists as I have no problem with what they do.

MSM is there to make party members toe the state line. That seems to be about it.

By: Boyd Durkin

Boyd Durkin — Wed, 31 Oct 2012 17:13:30 +0000

You know, the guys who pay 15% federal tax on their 30-millionth dollar, while a self-employed person like me pays over 30% federal tax on my First taxable dollar!

I encourage the raging masses upset by the above ration to do whatever it takes to change capital gains tax rates to anywhere between 30-50%. Hell, don’t stop there. Capital gains taxes should be 90%, right? It’s not like they had to swing a hammer to get that money!

Then, watch your glorious utopia of true fairness unfold.

I’ll be watching from Singapore…waiting.

PS: Fight to get 30% tax rate lowered, not 15% cap-gains raised.

By: William Anderson

William Anderson — Wed, 31 Oct 2012 17:05:07 +0000

We have to remember that modern newspapers are relics of the Progressive Era when the “elites” (including journalistic elites) came to believe that government-sponsored “experts” needed to be the main decision makers about everything. Furthermore, the “experts” needed to be housed in the bureaucracies of the executive branch.

Look at the worshipful attitudes that mainstream newspapers show toward federal agencies, from the TSA to the FBI and you will understand what I mean.

By: Nick T.

Nick T. — Wed, 31 Oct 2012 16:28:35 +0000

#32

That memo (the “Ogden memo”) is no longer in effect so that bolded part is demonstrably untrue as Radley stated. It’s not a matter of interpretation, it’s been revoked. See here:

“In isolation, such moves might be seen as the work of overzealous U.S. attorneys, who operate with considerable autonomy. But last June, the Justice Department effectively declared that it was returning to the Bush administration’s hard-line stance on medical marijuana. James Cole, who had replaced Ogden as deputy attorney general, wrote a memo revoking his predecessor’s deference to states on the definition of “caregiver.” The term, Cole insisted, applied only to “individuals providing care to individuals with cancer or other serious illnesses, not commercial operations cultivating, selling or distributing marijuana.” Pot dispensaries, in short, were once again prime federal targets, even if they were following state law to the letter.

By: croaker

croaker — Wed, 31 Oct 2012 16:25:31 +0000

@23 @27 In reality, what happens in states that legalize marijuana is that the state/local cops are federally deputized and keep right on knocking over grows and dispensaries. The cops ignore elections all the time, because they’re getting $$$.

By: James

James — Wed, 31 Oct 2012 15:54:31 +0000

#2 and #29…. Radley tweeted about both of those stories yesterday. I wouldn’t be surprised if they show up in a collection of afternoon links later today.

#32… If you give an order to someone that you have the ability to fire at will (the top 2 DEA positions are presidential appointees that the president can fire without needing Congressional permission) and that person disregards that order and you don’t fire them, that means the order was not meant to be followed.

By: James

James — Wed, 31 Oct 2012 15:38:43 +0000

Also see Greenwald's, Journalism in the Obama age shows the real media bias...

Ample ink is spilled over debating whether the US media is biased in favor of Republicans or Democrats. It is neither. The overwhelming, driving bias of the US media is subservience to power, whoever happens to be wielding it.

By: John Jenkins

John Jenkins — Wed, 31 Oct 2012 15:38:07 +0000

@divadam: Just curious: what statute do you think is being perverted in the tax treatment of profits interests (this is a trick question)?

By: James

James — Wed, 31 Oct 2012 15:36:26 +0000

On, "Is the Media Liberal?", see Broadsnark (follow the link for the full post)...

If conservative is defined as wanting to live by religious doctrine or being anti-abortion, then the media is not particularly conservative. If conservative is defined as supporting current institutions of privilege, power, and domination, then the media is conservative as hell. If liberal is defined as wanting fundamental changes and real social justice, then the media is not liberal. If liberal is defined as being classist, elitist, and status-seeking, then the media is liberal as hell.

By: Freedom76

Freedom76 — Wed, 31 Oct 2012 15:09:49 +0000

Gary Johnson’s closing pitch: ‘Waste your vote on me’ Posted by Felicia Sonmez on October 23, 2012

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/election-2012/wp/2012/10/23/gary-johnsons-closing-pitch-waste-your-vote-on-me/