Who are the "high ratings" liberal commentators?

[KingsGambit]

And what is wrong with basing it on other factors? Oh, but to discriminate by race is obviously bad, right? So that proves FDR was a bad, bad person.

So since I have apparently forfeited any right to criticize Japanese American internment, allow me to ask you to put on your historian's hat for a moment as I ask, what is your stance on the historical Japanese American internment, then?

The guy was also preparing to incinerate millions of civilians regardless of their race.

[Carrikature]

Jon Stewart, and I think that's it. As for radio, my theory is that liberal audiences are more likely to listen to music on the radio (those who don't are probably listening to something like NPR).

If you want to include Jon Stewart, you should probably also include Stephen Colbert. That said, I think they're both in a distinct class from those like Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh. They've first and foremost been comedians/satirists, and Jon at least (not watched as much SC) is perfectly willing to poke fun at both sides of the aisle.

Most liberals I know aren't really watching talk shows. I'll grant that they're more likely to listen to public broadcasting (not synonymous with NPR). Bill Maher and Rachel Maddow might qualify (never seen the latter), but I don't think they're anywhere on par with the ratings that conservative icons seem to enjoy.

[Cow Poke]

If you want to include Jon Stewart, you should probably also include Stephen Colbert. That said, I think they're both in a distinct class from those like Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh.

[Carrikature]

I used to do information research for a radio talk show part time for about a year. Yeah, I have no idea how they work If you want details I'll PM you.

My point was that far too few liberals are used to having nearly everything they say challenged. This was why myths like domestic battery is the nation’s #1 cause of birth defects; more women are abused by men on Super Bowl Sunday than on any other day of the year and an entire slew of misinformation about gun control got unquestionably accepted and routinely repeated by the media. They never bothered to do even a cursory investigation which would have revealed that the claims were balderdash. They never pressed the people making the claims. They just accepted them on face value.

In contrast, conservatives and to a lesser extent libertarians are used to being asked to back up what they say. Often even the most general statements. While that does not mean that they can all do so it prepared many of those who became successful talk show hosts to handle callers who challenged them.

The lack of this experience was quite a problem for many of those with a more liberal political and social outlook who tried their hand in this venue. And it was evident. They often got frustrated. They often thought of a response and gave it after a commercial break. They just didn't do a good job.

This has certainly not been my experience. I suspect this has more to do with the political climate of a given area. Conservatives might be more accustomed to being challenged in areas where they enjoy a less significant majority. I've seen little enough across Texas to indicate that the conservatives are getting challenged on even a semi-regular basis.

[rogue06]

This has certainly not been my experience. I suspect this has more to do with the political climate of a given area. Conservatives might be more accustomed to being challenged in areas where they enjoy a less significant majority. I've seen little enough across Texas to indicate that the conservatives are getting challenged on even a semi-regular basis.

I'm thinking more of the national media. Watch an interview of a prominent liberal with its softballs and compare it to the grilling that the same person gives a conservative as an example of what I mean. Conservatives are used to being challenged and pushed and that crucible better prepared more of them to handle the sort of environment that talk radio is.

[Cow Poke]

I'm thinking more of the national media. Watch an interview of a prominent liberal with its softballs and compare it to the grilling that the same person gives a conservative as an example of what I mean. Conservatives are used to being challenged and pushed and that crucible better prepared more of them to handle the sort of environment that talk radio is.

What I hate is when a media person asks a question based on a false premise, and the conservative doesn't challenge the false premise, but tries to answer the question.

[Starlight]

I wouldn't. I wouldn't be happy with Japanese internment.

I would take it for granted that were FDR alive today he would have learned from history how wrong the Japanese internment was/went, and never do anything of the sort again.

I'm generally willing to give historical figures some leniency on human rights, because humans rights are ideas that have developed over time with the benefit of hindsight, and if you try and hold all historical figures to today's standards, then you just end up concluding that almost everyone who ever lived was evil, which is not necessarily a useful conclusion.

Like most (all?) politicians, she says one thing, but her actions do the other.

I strongly dislike the notion that "all politicians are dishonest" - I think that sort of thinking does harm by allowing politicians who are dishonest to get a pass on the grounds that 'everyone does it', while not giving politicians who are actually honest the credit they deserve. Honesty and integrity are probably the traits I look for in politicians above all else.

As for rumors, I'm pretty sure she publicly has done the things I said she did.

Your statements about her positions on the two bills were true. Your general understanding of what the bills would do appeared mostly wrong. And the rumor part of your statement was idea that Warren is pro big bankers. The reality is that she is the single most outspoken politician in the US against big bankers.

The Federal Reserve Act was created by big bankers for the benefit of big bankers, and the Fed generally has been run by big bankers.

I'm not quite sure if you're getting into conspiracy theory territory here.

Regardless of its origins, the functions of the Federal Reserve have been altered quite drastically throughout the 20th century. Basically every country now has a part of its government which does something akin to what the Federal Reserve does - ie manages the money supply, because this is something that needs doing. You can potentially point to individual policies or individual tools that any given country does/doesn't have with regard to exactly what it's Federal Reserve does/doesn't do and say those are good/bad for various reasons. So the ways in which the Federal Reserve might be made to work at any given time, might well benefit big bankers or it might hurt them depending on government policy. And I'll grant you that for various reasons governments have tended to put people from the banking industry in charge of their Federal Reserve - sometimes that's doubtless corruption, and sometime it just plain makes sense to put an expert in charge.

Its purposes today are still to serve big bankers by propping them up artificially, enforcing cartel-like cooperation in things like setting interest rates and expanding credit, supplying them with additional money supply.

Most of these tend to be good things most of the time. Massive banking failure = bad thing. The government keeping an eye on the banks, keeping an eye on the economy's money supply, and ensuring there's not a nationwide banking collapse, are all good things.

That said, there are certain policies that the Federal Reserve follows that I strongly disagree with. I would be the first to want to see some law changes happen. Laws governing the Federal Reserve are still largely based on ideas from the 1970s & 80s, and the tools that the Federal Reserve is allowed to use to manage the economy haven't really been upgraded much since. After the 2008 crisis, there were a whole lot of things that the chairman of the Federal Reserve wanted to do, but couldn't do, because the laws didn't allow it and the Republicans wouldn't agree to pass anything at all because they hated Obama. So the Federal Reserve struggled to deal with the problems that the 2008 crisis presented because they had their hands tied too tightly by existing rules. Dodd-Frank has helped fix some of these problems somewhat, by giving the Federal Reserve more power to manage the bankruptcy processes of large banks.

It provides special benefits to bankers that no one else receives.

Er, well it runs the banking sector and oversees it. The Fed is the police force on Wall Street.

Any supporter of the Fed is a friend to big bankers.

I'm strongly against big bankers, and I therefore support extremely strong banking regulations and making sure the Fed has the banks tightly reined in and the power to stomp all over them should it need to in times of crisis.

There was massive regulation of banking prior to 2008. There was no lack of regulation.

No. There was a systematic effort to deregulate banking, whose pinnacle is generally taken to be the repeal of the Glass–Steagall regulations in 1999. And lo, and behold, within a decade a massive financial crisis resulted. Funnily enough, when you take away the rules and the police force then the criminals quickly cause havoc.

A myth that helps cause crises like 2008, because it makes big bankers have the expectation that they will be bailed out.

Let me be clear: I don't support bank bailouts. I think that banks should be allowed to fail, and when banks do fail:
1) the government should step in as the receiver, immediately seizing control of the bank
2) shareholders in the bank would lose everything - as far as they are concerned as owners, their business has gone bankrupt
3) the government should immediately separate the core banking part of the company from any investment parts
4) the government should pump in sufficient funds to keep the bank part operating as a bank, guaranteeing all deposits and accounts held by ordinary citizens
5) investigators should look carefully through all the CEO's & executives emails / policies etc and if there's any fraud etc then prosecute and jail the people responsible. Otherwise simply fire the senior management for their incompetency that they have demonstrated in letting the business they were running go bankrupt.
6) once new management is appointed to the core banking part of the company, the government can then sell it on the stock market, as a functioning business.
7) do whatever normally happens during bankruptcy processes to the investment parts of the bank

What caused the bubble burst in 2008 was the government inflating the bubble in the first place by subsidizing risk (including creating the expectation of bailout),

What makes you think there was any expectation of bailout? The Lehman Brothers were the first to go bankrupt and they weren't bailed out.

Only when it became clear that every single bank was going to go bankrupt if there wasn't massive government intervention, and the government had consequently begun bailing out all the banks, did the notion of bailouts become expected.

and artificially expanding credit via the Fed.

If this is a general complaint about the fractional reserve system, and the low liquidity ratios that have been allowed, then I agree. Dodd-Frank helped slightly by improving the ratios required, but it's a little bit like putting lipstick on a pig.

[Carrikature]

I'm thinking more of the national media. Watch an interview of a prominent liberal with its softballs and compare it to the grilling that the same person gives a conservative as an example of what I mean. Conservatives are used to being challenged and pushed and that crucible better prepared more of them to handle the sort of environment that talk radio is.

This I can understand, but it seems to be a different context from the talk show host types mentioned in the OP.

[Joel]

I strongly dislike the notion that "all politicians are dishonest"

It's not just about honesty. It also is often the case that honest people are just ignorant of the negative/counter-productive consequences of the policy they advocate. Which happens all the time with economic policy.

Regardless of its origins, the functions of the Federal Reserve have been altered quite drastically throughout the 20th century.

Not that drastically. (Other than the drastic change that Federal Reserve Notes are no longer redeemable for gold.)
Its functions continue to be: open market operations, the "discount window" and lender of last resort, and reserve requirements.
Some new things it has done since the 2008 crash are just new ways of "injecting" new assets into banks, such as new forms of loans, and paying interest on bank reserves--that is, new ways of subsidizing big bankers.

Basically every country now has a part of its government which does something akin to what the Federal Reserve does - ie manages the money supply, because this is something that needs doing.

No, it doesn't need doing. The U.S. was without a central bank from 1836 to 1913.
Manipulating the money supply just causes problems. And the other functions involve direct subsidies/privileges for banks. In the latter case, the only way to remove their benefit to big bankers is to abolish those functions.

Most of these tend to be good things most of the time. Massive banking failure = bad thing.

But then later you say you don't support bank bailouts (and that the Fed should "stomp all over [the banks] should it need to in times of crisis." Which is it?
Bank failures is not necessarily a bad thing. If a bank is insolvent, then they probably should go out of business, and its assets be transferred to more capable hands, thus strengthening the economy. The possibility of going bankrupt places a check on banks. Remove the threat of, say, a bank run, and the bank is enabled to be more irresponsible.

The idea of a chain reaction of failures destroying the economy is a myth perpetuated by fear and by those interested in bailing out the banks. A bankruptcy doesn't mean all the assets vanish; it just means they are transferred to new owners. It puts the economy on solider ground.

I'm strongly against big bankers, and I therefore support extremely strong banking regulations and making sure the Fed has the banks tightly reined in

What function of the Fed do you think "reins in" the banks? Just the setting of reserve requirements?

No. There was a systematic effort to deregulate banking, whose pinnacle is generally taken to be the repeal of the Glass–Steagall regulations in 1999. And lo, and behold, within a decade a massive financial crisis resulted. Funnily enough, when you take away the rules and the police force then the criminals quickly cause havoc.

That's not what happened. See the graph on this page http://seanwmalone.blogspot.com/2013...iot-again.html showing how financial regulatory restrictions increased nearly 20% from 1997 to 2008. The "pinnacle" you mention (the 1999 Gramm-Leach-Billey Act of 1999) did not decrease the overall quantity of financial regulatory restrictions. It was part of an upward climb.

So if we are going to try to draw any causal connection between the changes in financial regulation and the financial crisis it would have to be that the increase in amount of regulation caused the crisis.

What makes you think there was any expectation of bailout?

For example, there's the lender of last resort, specifically for that purpose. Fanny and Freddie were willing to buy anything from the banks, and everyone (correctly) believed that Fanny and Freddie would be bailed out. There was the long history of the U.S. bailing out failed banks.

[KingsGambit]

I thought about Colbert but I thought he was off the air now. Is this not the case? (I've never actually watched him nor Stewart; I don't have cable.)

[Carrikature]

I thought about Colbert but I thought he was off the air now. Is this not the case? (I've never actually watched him nor Stewart; I don't have cable.)

I don't remember if he's officially off the air yet. He's taking over for David Letterman, which I thought was happening in the near future (if not already).

[lilpixieofterror]

I'd be happy with JFK or FDR or Elizabeth Warren.

JFK? The same person that blockaded a Cuba (which is an act of war).
The same person that got us involved in Vietnam?

You mean that JFK?

Or FDR? The same person that got the US involved in WWII.
The same person that gave the British 100 destroyers?

You mean that FDR?

You have an odd way of calling Obama a 'war-hawk' while picking US presidents that were well known for their war-hawk actions.

Your gratuitous communism comparisons are absurd - should I start comparing you to Nazis just because you are right of center?!

You spend a lot of time defending basic communist ideas, so why do you hate being compared to the ideals you defend?

[lilpixieofterror]

Far too "war-hawish" for him.

Considering the things JFK and FDR did... it is kind of amusing to watch him call Obama a 'war-hawk', while picking presidents that got the US involved in major wars (and did things that are still acts of war to this day).

[lilpixieofterror]

Jeeez, all I said was I'd be happy with them. As in overall. I wasn't giving a ringing endorsement of every view they had ever expressed on any issue ever (not that I'm necessarily agreeing the claims made about their actions/statements have any merit).

So why do you attack Obama for being a 'war-hawk' while ignoring all the things these two did? JFK got the US involved in Vietnam and blockaded a country (which is still an act of war). FDR gave the British weapons of war in the loan-lease act and enacted economic sanctions against Japan (that pushed them into attacking the US). Quite interesting that you pick US presidents well known for their war actions while condemning war actions done by Obama and others.

[lilpixieofterror]

What's your implication?

That Papster is a troll and a moron that you should play with for your own amusement or ignore?