What does the Republican party stand for? - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in the USA and Canada.

Moderator: PoFo North America Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15057242
"A party without a governing theory, a higher purpose or a clear moral direction is nothing more than a cartel, a syndicate that exists only to advance itself. There is no organized, coherent purpose other than the acquisition and maintenance of power...

This is a sad fall. In Ronald Reagan’s America, being born an American was to win’s life lottery; in Donald Trump’s America, it makes you a victim, a patsy, a chump..

In a long-forgotten era — say, four years ago — such a question would have elicited a very different answer. Though there was disagreement over specific issues, most Republicans would have said the party stood for some basic principles: fiscal sanity, free trade, strong on Russia, and that character and personal responsibility count. Today it’s not that the Republican Party has forgotten these issues and values; instead, it actively opposes all of them."

Stuart Stevens is a GOP political consultant

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/wake-up-republicans-your-party-stands-for-all-the-wrong-things-now/2019/12/31/c8347b32-2be8-11ea-9b60-817cc18cf173_story.html
#15057245
The republican party stands for nothing, because they have their heads firmly planted up Trump's ass. It's hard to stand when that's where you head is.

:D
#15057315
late wrote:This is a sad fall. In Ronald Reagan’s America, being born an American was to win’s life lottery; in Donald Trump’s America, it makes you a victim, a patsy, a chump..

? When Ronald Reagan took power, unemployment was at 13% and interest rates were at 20%. That's not exactly winning life's lottery.

Talk about writing fiction: you claim Ronald Reagan destroyed the unions, which would hardly be winning life's lottery if you were a union member. You--like many others--wrongly blame Ronald Reagan for cutting mental health services. If this were true, it would hardly be winning life's lottery if you had mental health issues. The reality is that Reagan's policies simultaneously broke the back of inflation, revived the economy, rebuilt the military and bankrupted the Soviet Union. Yet, at that time as now, it was a difficult time to be an auto worker for example. US trade policy was, as Peter Zeihan notes, to bribe up an anti-Soviet alliance. I've been saying more or less the same thing for almost 20 years now.
#15057331
blackjack21 wrote:
? When Ronald Reagan took power, unemployment was at 13% and interest rates were at 20%. That's not exactly winning life's lottery.

Talk about writing fiction: you claim Ronald Reagan destroyed the unions, which would hardly be winning life's lottery if you were a union member. You--like many others--wrongly blame Ronald Reagan for cutting mental health services. If this were true, it would hardly be winning life's lottery if you had mental health issues. The reality is that Reagan's policies simultaneously broke the back of inflation, revived the economy, rebuilt the military and bankrupted the Soviet Union. Yet, at that time as now, it was a difficult time to be an auto worker for example. US trade policy was, as Peter Zeihan notes, to bribe up an anti-Soviet alliance. I've been saying more or less the same thing for almost 20 years now.



Reagan inherited that.

Paul Volcker broke inflation. Reagan's big spending made that harder...

If you want to give someone credit for bringing down the USSR, give it to the man who created the policy, George F Kennan.

"Bribe up an anti-Soviet alliance"?? Do you mean the way we were willing to sacrifice market share for hegemony?
#15057354
late wrote:Reagan's big spending made that harder...

No it didn't. Deficits made it easier to soak up excess liquidity.

late wrote:If you want to give someone credit for bringing down the USSR, give it to the man who created the policy, George F Kennan.

Kennan opposed the arms build-up that bankrupted the Soviet Union. Kennan's policy was strictly containment. I did agree with his criticism of the re-adoption of Wilsonian policy under Clinton. I agree now, although not at the time, with his criticism of the second Bush administration. I also agree with his position against expanding NATO as a strategic blunder of epic proportions.
#15057506
blackjack21 wrote:
No it didn't. Deficits made it easier to soak up excess liquidity.


Kennan opposed the arms build-up that bankrupted the Soviet Union. Kennan's policy was strictly containment. I did agree with his criticism of the re-adoption of Wilsonian policy under Clinton. I agree now, although not at the time, with his criticism of the second Bush administration. I also agree with his position against expanding NATO as a strategic blunder of epic proportions.



Deficits increase the money supply... "Volcker faced a painful choice. Taming inflation required shrinking the money supply drastically..."

One economist, at the time, said it was liking stomping on the brake and the gas at the same time.

Kennan did not oppose the military buildup. What he opposed was the amount of the buildup. He most certainly not see the Cold War as being solely economic containment. What kook gave you that idea?

He saw the Cold War as primarily economic, and it was the collapse of their economy that ended the USSR.

Back to the main point, it was his plan, and it worked.

https://fortune.com/2019/12/09/inflation-recession-paul-volcker-fix-economy-fed-chair/
#15057558
late wrote:Deficits increase the money supply...

... if the Federal Reserve is buying the Treasury paper. If they aren't, it reduces money supply. The Fed was NOT buying the paper at the time, which is why interest rates were so high. It was the tax cuts that were counteracting the Fed's tight money policy.

late wrote:Kennan did not oppose the military buildup. What he opposed was the amount of the buildup.

:roll: Kennan was clearly in favor of détente, which Reagan clearly opposed.

late wrote:He most certainly not see the Cold War as being solely economic containment. What kook gave you that idea?

I never said anything of the sort. I think it's just a conversation you had with yourself inside your own head.

late wrote:He saw the Cold War as primarily economic, and it was the collapse of their economy that ended the USSR.

In the aftermath of WWII, the US was 50% of global GDP. We were pretty much all that was left of industrial capitalism that was unscathed by the war. However, Kennan only had policy-making influence during the Truman administration, and in the early years of the Truman administration at that. By the Carter years, US economic might was waning. Kennan was only about containing the Soviet Union in places he thought it mattered, which didn't include Vietnam for example.

Anyway, I find it strange you bring him up, because Trump is from the realist school in opposition to all the moralist neo-liberal/neo-conservative Wilsonianism that became vogue from Bill Clinton through Barack Obama. In fact, Kennan was critical of Clinton and Bush; although, he died before he could see the policies of the very glory of mankind, Barack Obama.
#15057569
blackjack21 wrote:
1) ... if the Federal Reserve is buying the Treasury paper. If they aren't, it reduces money supply. The Fed was NOT buying the paper at the time, which is why interest rates were so high. It was the tax cuts that were counteracting the Fed's tight money policy.


2) Kennan was clearly in favor of détente, which Reagan clearly opposed.


3) I never said anything of the sort. I think it's just a conversation you had with yourself inside your own head.


4) In the aftermath of WWII, the US was 50% of global GDP. We were pretty much all that was left of industrial capitalism that was unscathed by the war. However, Kennan only had policy-making influence during the Truman administration, and in the early years of the Truman administration at that. By the Carter years, US economic might was waning. Kennan was only about containing the Soviet Union in places he thought it mattered, which didn't include Vietnam for example.

5) Anyway, I find it strange you bring him up, because Trump is from the realist school in opposition to all the moralist neo-liberal/neo-conservative Wilsonianism that became vogue from Bill Clinton through Barack Obama. In fact, Kennan was critical of Clinton and Bush; although, he died before he could see the policies of the very glory of mankind, Barack Obama.



1) Debt adds to the money supply. It creates money. If I am reading you correctly, you have it exactly backwards.

2) Detente was Nixon. You keep trying to jump into the future, when what we are talking about was his intent when he devised the plan. There had to be a military component, but the War Hawks wanted more, they always do.

3) "Kennan's policy was strictly containment." Your words, not mine.

4) Vietnam made no sense. Are you actually siding with the Hawks??

5) Because it was his idea, and it worked. Hello???
#15057577
late wrote:1) Debt adds to the money supply. It creates money. If I am reading you correctly, you have it exactly backwards.

You are not understanding the effect of debt and of monetary policy or money supply. Debt can also be considered money in circulation in terms of mortgages, etc. For cash consideration, if there is $200 cash in circulation and the government issues $100 in bonds which are purchased, cash money supply falls by 50%. However, if there is $200 in circulation, the government issues $100 in bonds, and the Federal Reserve prints $100 and buys the bonds, then there is $300 money supply, but still only $200 in circulation until the government spends the $100. In fractional reserve banking, the Federal Reserve can sell US treasury bonds and not spend the money. The federal government can sell US treasury bonds while the Fed does not buy them.

Generally, government issuing debt contracts the supply of money in circulation. However, when quantitative easing is involved, it does not. During the Reagan years, monetary policy was tight, so deficit spending was soaking up excess liquidity. To get Fed Funds up to 20%, the Fed had to sell paper too and lots of it. They bought nothing. When this is done under normal monetary circumstances, it is said to have a "crowding out" effect.
#15057592
Now that we have had a nice chat about Reagan can we talk about the OP?

I am a lifelong republican who registered independent in protest against the party's move toward corporatism.

The party no longer represents the values I had as a conservative for a long time. It is a completely business owned and operated entity. Since the "Southern Strategy" it has cobbled together a coalition of racists, homophobes, pro-life and pro gun people who are all essentially single issue voters and decidedly NOT embracing conservative values.

What are those values?

Start with a pay-as-you-go tax program. Fiscal conservatism is at the heart of republican values.

Personal responsibility which they have abandoned in their candidates. If they can't insist that their pols tell the truth they cannot hold this high ground.


Look at the 1964 party platform quotes. They could not be further from modern republican actions:

3. Within our Republic the Federal Government should act only in areas where it has Constitutional authority to act, and then only in respect to proven needs where individuals and local or state governments will not or cannot adequately perform. Great power, whether governmental or private, political or economic, must be so checked, balanced and restrained and, where necessary, so dispersed as to prevent it from becoming a threat to freedom any place in the land.


DOMA? Cigarette bans?

4. It is a high mission of government to help assure equal opportunity for all, affording every citizen an equal chance at the starting line but never determining who is to win or lose. But government must also reflect the nation's compassionate concern for those who are unable, through no fault of their own, to provide adequately for themselves.


Today's republican party is the opposite of this.


5. Government must be restrained in its demands upon and its use of the resources of the people, remembering that it is not the creator but the steward of the wealth it uses; that its goals must ever discipline its means; and that service to all the people, never to selfish or partisan ends, must be the abiding purpose of men entrusted with public power.


Just :lol:

—full implementation and faithful execution of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and all other civil rights statutes, to assure equal rights and opportunities guaranteed by the Constitution to every citizen;


:lol:

—improvements of civil rights statutes adequate to changing needs of our times;

:lol:

—such additional administrative or legislative actions as may be required to end the denial, for whatever unlawful reason, of the right to vote;


They are doing exactly the opposite of this.

—immigration legislation seeking to re-unite families and continuation of the "Fair Share" Refugee Program;


:lol:

I could go on. Suffice it to say that even under Bush some of these were at least winked at. But the republican party is simply not republican.

: a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law


It simply does not believe this anymore. It openly practices voter suppression. It deliberately defies law. It governs at the pleasure of the highest bidder.

Does this mean I won't vote for republicans? No. I might vote for the odd republican. But odd he/she must be because he/she must be willing to work to reclaim the party.

When McCain voted to uphold Obamacare he was doing something that republicanism was built on. That is the notion that we govern in the best interest of the people and by consensus, not on a pure party line:

McCain: We must now return to the correct way of legislating and send the bill back to committee, hold hearings, receive input from both sides of aisle, heed the recommendations of nation's governors, and produce a bill that finally delivers affordable health care for the American people. We must do the hard work our citizens expect of us and deserve."


He gave them a roadmap to pass fixes to Obamacare or replace it. What he did not do is give the health care industry, which is who is pulling the republican strings, the opportunity to have no health care. And it was the right thing to do. Tell me the last time republicans did anything in this administration that benefited the little guy over corporate interest.
#15057594
blackjack21 wrote:


Generally, government issuing debt contracts the supply of money in circulation. However, when quantitative easing is involved, it does not. During the Reagan years, monetary policy was tight, so deficit spending was soaking up excess liquidity. To get Fed Funds up to 20%, the Fed had to sell paper too and lots of it. They bought nothing. When this is done under normal monetary circumstances, it is said to have a "crowding out" effect.



OK, I see what you're saying now. What you said is not all wrong, but it misses a couple things. First, there were the tax cuts, which were a stimulus, and the defense spending, which also funnelled money into the economy.

But one of the things Volcker was trying to do was break inflationary expectations, and massive deficits didn't help.

If I had the patience, if I am remembering correctly, there was just one time he discussed his frustration with Reagan. But there were plenty of other economists who talked about it, if you want to take a closer look at the era.

"But this time, the Fed continued with its restrictive monetary policies until inflation fell to roughly 4 percent, where it remained throughout the remainder of the 1980s. This victory over double-digit inflation occurred despite a big fiscal stimulus (tax cuts and defense spending) during the early years of the Reagan administration"
https://thehill.com/opinion/finance/473963-remembering-paul-volcker-the-man-who-tamed-inflation
#15057597
White grievance (racism), paranoia, persecution complexes, hatred of women, and ensuring that the wealthy pay no taxes.

Oh, and fucking children. They love fucking children too. They love it so much they created the "Hastert Rule" which means that pedophiles are immediately raised to the top ranks. That's why you saw Jim Jordan on the impeachment committee: the Hastert Rule demands that Republican pedophiles be present at all important hearings.

That's pretty much the GOP. We can end the discussion now, nothing further can be added.
Last edited by SpecialOlympian on 03 Jan 2020 18:53, edited 1 time in total.
#15057602
Democrat part is standing for identity politics (racism) extreme feminism(hating white men) self righteousness(who the fuck are you to tell others what to believe in and how to behave?!) giving illegals free education and healthcare (WTF!?) pedophilia and the mentally ill alphabet community which is demanding privileges
#15057604
Zionist Nationalist wrote:
Democrat part is standing for identity politics (racism) extreme feminism(hating white men) self righteousness(who the fuck are you to tell others what to believe in and how to behave?!) giving illegals free education and healthcare (WTF!?) pedophilia and the mentally ill alphabet community which is demanding privileges



Cut back on the fiber in your diet. Methane is a greenhouse gas...
#15057607
No, they're racist pedophiles. Jim Jordan is a pedophile. He was considered important enough to be put on the impeachment panel beause he is a pedophile. The GOP loves pedophiles and pedophilia. It's right there in front of you, but you refuse to see it (the GOP pedophilia).
Blast in Beirut, Lebanon

@skinster Sivad's only a babbit when it suits hi[…]

Joe Biden

‘He better pick a Black woman’: Biden faces Whitm[…]

Interesting piece of news: Set on 75 square kil[…]

Welcome to PoFoLandia

They’re taxing my ‘hypercubical thoughts‘? That[…]