What's new

Republicans and Fascism

Where you were talking out of your butt was when you wrote that any year in which Congress passed a budget that had revenue > spending would reduce the amount of money in circulation.

Let me break it down on clearer terms

This is your framing:
a: More cars on the roads lead to more pollution
b: But that is impossible because the number of cars went up and pollution went down! Therefore fewer cars means more pollution!

This is a type of “post hoc, ergo propter hoc” logical fallacy

The correct framing:
a: More cars on the highway lead to more pollution, all else equal
b.. So while pollution has gone down, it would have gone down by more if the number of cars had not increased. Alas, there may be other factors involved!
c. Hey look, the average mpg also went up and three factories were shut down. Aha, it is a multivariate relationship! Math is cool!!


So you can say that: "all else equal, a budget surplus will reduce M2"

And you can say that "every budget surplus does not necessarily result in an reduction in M2, because there are many other factors that affect M2, some of which may be driving M2 in the opposite direction."

Got it now?
 
This is exactly what working class people need right? Cuz economic anxiety, gas prices, and something something…

View: https://twitter.com/davidcorndc/status/1584905313601392646?s=46&t=JDOeacKaTUJsEmVCvlrv8w

Russia is signaling to Qanon/Repubs here:

View: https://twitter.com/juliadavisnews/status/1584930049480085505?s=46&t=JDOeacKaTUJsEmVCvlrv8w

And it’s Biden’s fault Covid is still a thing, right? When conservative propaganda pulls this kind of ****?
View: https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1584972155288227841?s=46&t=JDOeacKaTUJsEmVCvlrv8w


This is a really good article and I wished more people read it and understood just the basics about democracy, economics, and history.

 
Got it now?
Oh, I've got it but then I always had it. What I'm asking is why I bothered and to that I'm still not sure.

So you can say that: "all else equal, a budget surplus will reduce M2"
Find me an example of where it has ever happened in history subsequent to the Federal Reserve Act. That Keynesian idea you are selling has been a laughing stock since the late 70's when it stagflated the economy and Volker came in to do what the Fed is now mimicking. You were on safe ground when you said that deficit spending was inflationary but the absence of deficit spending does not erase Federal Reserve notes from circulation. Only the Federal Reserve has the power to remove Federal Reserve notes from circulation. If the Federal Reserve wants there to be an increase in M2 in a time of budget surpluses, there will be a rise in M2. However, if the Federal Reserve is trying to reduce M2 then sizable congressional deficit spending can make that difficult or maybe even impossible because as we both agree, deficit spending is inflationary.

As I framed the issue in this thread four days ago:
Our house is on fire. The Fed arrived late and initially with too few trucks but they are here now to fight the fire. Meanwhile the Democrats are still running around the house setting more fires. What the fiscal conservatives will do to help put the fire out is to stop lighting more fires while the Fed works to extinguish the inferno the firebug no-spending-package-too-big-democrats created.
 
What the fiscal conservatives will do to help put the fire out is to stop lighting more fires
Comparatively speaking, the fiscal conservatives are already in power. Over the past 40 years, the Republicans have increased the debt (and therefore money supply) much more.

Of course, you don't seem to really care about fiscal conservatism. You seem to be interested in eliminating the social safety net and allowing people to discriminate against LGBTQ+ people. Republicans are great for that.
 
Find me an example of where it has ever happened in history subsequent to the Federal Reserve Act. That Keynesian idea you are selling has been a laughing stock since the late 70's when it stagflated the economy and Volker came in to do what the Fed is now mimicking. You were on safe ground when you said that deficit spending was inflationary but the absence of deficit spending does not erase Federal Reserve notes from circulation. Only the Federal Reserve has the power to remove Federal Reserve notes from circulation. If the Federal Reserve wants there to be an increase in M2 in a time of budget surpluses, there will be a rise in M2. However, if the Federal Reserve is trying to reduce M2 then sizable congressional deficit spending can make that difficult or maybe even impossible because as we both agree, deficit spending is inflationary.

I'm perplexed how you understand that deficit spending increases M2 and is inflationary but having a budget surplus does not decrease M2 and is not disinflationary. This is a well understood economic principle and it really is not much more than simple monetary supply and demand. Conservative and Liberal economics both embrace this fundamental principle.

Keynes believed that government spending can stabilize the economy and I have made no comment on this either pro or con. As I'm a fiscal conservative, maybe you can guess my opinion. Or you can lie and claim that I am "selling" something based on what your imaginary friend has whispered into your ear.

And finally, if you think any politician is fiscally conservative today, I want some of what you are smoking. If this were true, Government spending would have been slashed when the GOP controlled all 3 branches of government for 2 years. Nope, spend, spend spend. Debts have run up much more under the GOP.
 
I'm perplexed how you understand that deficit spending increases M2 and is inflationary but having a budget surplus does not decrease M2 and is not disinflationary.
In a nutshell it is strictly because M2 is a measure of Federal Reserve currency and Congress does not have power over it. Deficit spending is inflationary because the primary buyer of government debt is the Federal Reserve and they nearly always, but not absolutely always, increase the amount of reserve currency to buy the debt.

The box has to be big enough to hold the egg. If you grow the size of the egg, you'll need a bigger box to hold it. Shrinking the egg doesn't mean the box must shrink to hold it. The Federal Reserve can choose to shrink the box if the egg is smaller but it never does. That is what the 1998-2001 chart was showing. M2 is the size of the box, and the size of the box is up to the Fed. Only the size of the egg is up to Congress.

If you were intending to say economists on the political left think as you do in terms of Congress having the power legislatively control the size of M2, then please explain 'The Inflation Reduction Act' the democrats just passed on a party-line vote.
 
Last edited:
If you were intending to say economists on the political left think as you do in terms of Congress having the power legislatively control the size of M2, then please explain 'The Inflation Reduction Act' the democrats just passed on a party-line vote.
I neither stated nor implied any such thing. You have a great imagination.

What is your question about the so-called "inflation reduction act"?
 
How badly brainwormed do you have to be to think Republicans top priority is the well being of the every-man?
Agreed. Just look at what they’re campaigning on.

View: https://twitter.com/vaughnhillyard/status/1585013333262204929?s=46&t=_SA00uqLSwSmSRN_sIr-wA



View: https://twitter.com/jeremyduda/status/1444484819312787459?s=46&t=_SA00uqLSwSmSRN_sIr-wA



View: https://twitter.com/andrewjbates46/status/1585222813811904513?s=46&t=_SA00uqLSwSmSRN_sIr-wA



View: https://twitter.com/meidastouch/status/1585078547504582657?s=46&t=_SA00uqLSwSmSRN_sIr-wA


But inflation, gas prices, soft on crime, something something something REPUBLICANS! It’s amazing to me how short our memories are. Our country keeps going in circles because conservative media floods the zone with ****. This drives the narrative and drowns out any counter narrative. While voters with attention spans of goldfish swim in circles wondering why problems never get solved.

More tax cuts! Dang it that didn’t work.
More guns! Dang it that didn’t work.
Oh I got it, more tax cuts!
 
Last edited:
Two more stories reminiscent of the rise of fascism:


 
Using the state to intimidate or punish businesses into falling in line is a huge part of fascism.


View: https://twitter.com/peltzmadeline/status/1585385979938234368?s=46&t=BGzjI1UAL1Gitr6-qaboCg



View: https://twitter.com/tomcottonar/status/1586167045745684480?s=46&t=BGzjI1UAL1Gitr6-qaboCg


DeSantis punished Disney. Trump, Ben Shapiro, and Fox News prime time hosts have all suggested using the powers of the state to punish businesses.

That's just small government in action.
 
This almost surely will involve its own thread, when the time comes…


If the Supreme Court agrees with the GOP-controlled legislature, it will be a godsend to the Republican Party in two critical respects. First, it will allow gerrymandered GOP legislatures to self-perpetuate and to approve voting rules that disfavor all other parties. Governors, who are necessarily more politically moderate than gerrymandered legislatures because they must appeal to statewide constituencies, and state supreme court justices, who are either appointed by those governors or face their own statewide elections, would have no ability to counter those actions.

Secondly, Article ll, Section 1, of the Constitution uses similar wording for the appointment of electors to the electoral college, i.e., “Each State shall appoint [Electors], in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct.” A Court holding in favor of the legislature would provide legitimacy to the type of efforts made by GOP extremists in the 2020 election to present alternate slates of presidential electors. What a gift to Justice Clarence Thomas’s wife, Ginni, who labored so hard to get legislators in at least two states, Arizona and Wisconsin, to submit alternate elector slates to the electoral college favoring President Trump. Justice Thomas has a glaring conflict of interest in this case and must recuse himself, even at the risk of marital discord in his home.

Although a ruling for the legislature would be a major coup for the GOP, it would be a hammer blow to the rule of law in America. The idea that a state legislature, acting on its own, could set important substantive rules for the conduct of federal elections, is a rude affront to the very fabric of our constitutional system of checks and balances.

Those who wrote the Constitution were driven by the idea that governmental power should be divided among the three branches of government – executive, legislative and judicial – so that each branch could act as a check on the power of the others. The legislature passes legislation, which only becomes law with the approval of the executive, and the state courts have the power to rule upon it. It’s as simple as that. The framers of our Constitution would be dumbfounded to think that our high court could even be considering such a rogue scheme as the legislature is peddling.
 
This almost surely will involve its own thread, when the time comes…


If the Supreme Court agrees with the GOP-controlled legislature, it will be a godsend to the Republican Party in two critical respects. First, it will allow gerrymandered GOP legislatures to self-perpetuate and to approve voting rules that disfavor all other parties. Governors, who are necessarily more politically moderate than gerrymandered legislatures because they must appeal to statewide constituencies, and state supreme court justices, who are either appointed by those governors or face their own statewide elections, would have no ability to counter those actions.

Secondly, Article ll, Section 1, of the Constitution uses similar wording for the appointment of electors to the electoral college, i.e., “Each State shall appoint [Electors], in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct.” A Court holding in favor of the legislature would provide legitimacy to the type of efforts made by GOP extremists in the 2020 election to present alternate slates of presidential electors. What a gift to Justice Clarence Thomas’s wife, Ginni, who labored so hard to get legislators in at least two states, Arizona and Wisconsin, to submit alternate elector slates to the electoral college favoring President Trump. Justice Thomas has a glaring conflict of interest in this case and must recuse himself, even at the risk of marital discord in his home.

Although a ruling for the legislature would be a major coup for the GOP, it would be a hammer blow to the rule of law in America. The idea that a state legislature, acting on its own, could set important substantive rules for the conduct of federal elections, is a rude affront to the very fabric of our constitutional system of checks and balances.

Those who wrote the Constitution were driven by the idea that governmental power should be divided among the three branches of government – executive, legislative and judicial – so that each branch could act as a check on the power of the others. The legislature passes legislation, which only becomes law with the approval of the executive, and the state courts have the power to rule upon it. It’s as simple as that. The framers of our Constitution would be dumbfounded to think that our high court could even be considering such a rogue scheme as the legislature is peddling.
It is obvious the founding fathers did not anticipate the rise of the 2-party system, which allows for heavily stacking the various branches of government with like-minded people with the same goals, whatever those may be. So if you get a heavily republican SC and legislature, then regardless of the executive, they can collude to "republicanize" the nation, and there is little that can be done to stop it. The same thing could happen the other way around as well, of course. The only hope is that enough representatives of the other party are elected to form the required check on the others, but when that doesn't happen, then you get what you have now, an over-reach bordering on fascism to firmly establish a single party as the controlling power. We will then be one step away from full demagoguery and tyranny. Wouldn't take much at that point for them to change the rules about terms, and entrench themselves permanently, from the president on down, especially if this power with the state legislature is upheld. Gillead here we come.
 
Although a ruling for the legislature would be a major coup for the GOP, it would be a hammer blow to the rule of law in America. The idea that a state legislature, acting on its own, could set important substantive rules for the conduct of federal elections, is a rude affront to the very fabric of our constitutional system of checks and balances.
Your wording was a little confused. I'm sure you'd agree that state legislators should set rules for the conduct of elections, as they do in every state today. It's doing so without checks and balances that is the danger.

Those who wrote the Constitution were driven by the idea that governmental power should be divided among the three branches of government – executive, legislative and judicial – so that each branch could act as a check on the power of the others. The legislature passes legislation, which only becomes law with the approval of the executive, and the state courts have the power to rule upon it. It’s as simple as that. The framers of our Constitution would be dumbfounded to think that our high court could even be considering such a rogue scheme as the legislature is peddling.
Agreed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Red
Your wording was a little confused. I'm sure you'd agree that state legislators should set rules for the conduct of elections, as they do in every state today. It's doing so without checks and balances that is the danger.
Agreed. I was quoting part of the article itself. Normally I would have used quotation marks. I’m slippin, lol…
 
Back
Top