Jan 6 Sham Hearings a Ratings BUST for Big Networks

Is it possible Democrats committed election fraud? Yes, it is possible.
Is it possible Republicans committed election fraud? Yes, it is possible.
Is it possible President Trump stole from me $100 million? Yes, it is possible.
In democracy you need court evidence, in dictatorship you dont need any evidence, you need a dictator verdict.

 

And a ton of useful idiots.

 

You'd have to live outside the U.S, for a time to see how much all the news networks don't cover. Just one example ... Has any network even mentioned the option of putting a surtax on high income earners to cool inflation?

 

Yes, and now politicians who swear they're for democracy in our gov't (no, they aren't, they're lying) are advocating for more federal pandemic rules to be put permanently into place during elections...These lying politicians have also been reluctant to investigate the pandemic rules election of 2020 which is another indication of politicians' unwillingness to uphold democracy in our elections.

 

I'm not interested in looking back, I want future elections as secure as my bank statement.

 

Yes. That's the only way he have any semblance of democracy in our gov't. You think politicians have our best interests?

 

Remind me. When was the WH invaded by an enraged mob?

Is there a thread about that matter? If not, why don't you create one?

 

We have to make it in their best interests, to serve our interests.

 

Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.

 

I don't know but I do know that it would have no effect on inflation.

 

Once 270 electors are certified by the State Legislatures, the election is over. The results are unchangeable. Our opportunities lie future.

 

No one has mentioned the "regular military." You are essentially arguing against a straw man at this point. When Senator Tom Cotton was asking that the military be brought in to suppress the BLM riots that cost about $2 billion in damages, went on for months, ended with over two dozen people dead, and over 2,000 police officers injured, despite the fact that a lot of people on your side did not like that idea very much, he specifically mentions in the article the use of the National Guard. The people on your side that were protesting it were against any use of the military, including the National Guard, being used during the BLM riots. Therefore, let me rephrase the question, since you are dancing around it. Do you agree with Senator Tom Cotton that the National Guard should have been deployed during the BLM riots? If you do, do you have a quote from this forum during the months of BLM rioting in which you advocated that the National Guard should restore order? I believe you have advocated multiple times that the National Guard should have been used during the riot on January 6th, 2021. I am wondering if there is at least one--just one--quote from you about the use of the National Guard during the BLM riots.

 

The violence outside of the White House was in the context of BLM riots that lasted for months, cost about $2 billion in damages, went on for months, ended with over two dozen people dead, and over 2,000 police officers injured. By all objective metrics, the BLM riots were much worse, yet there has not been a day of a congressional hearing on the matter, much less a committee specific for it. The grounds of the White House were trespassed on on the night that the Secret Service had to rush the President Donald Trump to a more-secure location in the White House:

Secret Service officers detained at least four protesters, who were charged with unlawful entry at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, according to arrest records. The incident took place near the border between the White House lawn and Treasury Department, about 350 feet from the East Wing, and close to a Treasury fence line that has been at the center of past security failures.

The breach occurred around the time that the Secret Service alert level on the White House complex was elevated from “yellow” to “red,” according to a law enforcement official, who, like others, spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe internal safety maneuvers. Officials familiar with the incident told colleagues that the president, the first lady and their son Barron were rushed to the bunker because of the episode, according to two people familiar with their accounts.

Nevertheless, the rioters were referred to as "protesters" by the media. Name me one article by left-wing outlets such as CNN, The Washington Post, The New York Times, etc., that has ever referred to any of the rioters on January 6th, 2021, as "protesters."

 

Who are you kidding? A significant surtax on high income folks would have knocked down inflation a bit.

 

You would be a lot better informed if you read up on Posse Comitatus.

 

Sort of in the same way that due to the displacement of water, putting a significantly sized boat into the ocean rockets up the sea level "a bit".

 

How could it possibly do that? It would increase government revenue but government is content to spend without revenue. Adding revenue just adds spending. Also don't fall for the combination of inflation and prices. Inflation is inflation of the money supply by government spending money into existence. Prices are caused the relationship between supply and demand. They have different causes, different effects and different solutions. Wealthy people don't inflate the money supply and they don't determine price competition. I'm afraid you are completely off base.

 

And I'd add, those who do not hold wrong doers accountable will be condemned to suffer more wrong doing from them and others encouraged by the lack of consequences.

 

It would cut aggregate demand.

No, it doesn't. Pols add to spending.

Quite simply, you don't seem to understand basic economic principles. Government is inflating the money supply, but not by the mechanism you think.

Your sentence is unclear, but you may be trying to express that in theory the intersection of supply and demand determine the market price.

This doesn't describe supply, demand and markets.

Central banks inflate the money supply. Wealthy people don't set market prices.

I taught economics. For what it's worth to you, I support free markets and private ownership.

 

I don't think so. The very wealthy will buy or not buy what they want regardless of taxation

Of course. They add to spending whether there is revenue or not.

Oh good. An economic mystery. Fascinating.

You understood my sentence perfectly.

Correct. My point is that it is misleading to mix CPI in with inflation. They are two different things.

Correct. But central banks do it at the requirements of government. Spending non existent money causes it. There isn't any other reason to do it.

Then you should understand that the reason economists disagree on almost everything is that economics is the study of human behavior and therefore not very solid.

 

We're not just talking about "the very wealthy" in terms of a surtax.

The CPI is an attempt to track inflation.

This is flat wrong about how central banks, in our case the Federal Reserve, creates money.

Economists don't "disagree on almost everything" and apparent disagreements are often over minor details or a result of buying economists by money interests.

 

Fine.

My point is that prices have nothing to do with actual inflation. Inflation is about the money supply and the CPI is about supply and demand. I realize that combining them is what the economic community does but I view it as misleading to do that.

Perhaps one day you will explain it to me.

Obviously we disagree here.

 

I think you're going too far in trying to disconnect prices and the CPI.

No, but I will suggest the concepts are explained in many places on the internet. For example...

https://www.econlib.org/library/Topics/College/supplyanddemand.html

 

I didn't disconnect CPI and prices. CPI is all about prices. But I contend that neither has anything to do with actual inflation which is about money supply and not prices. You will have to think past your preconceived notions to catch what I'm talking about. Decades ago we understood what inflation is. Today way have hidden its meaning in economics by adding supply and demand to it.

I didn't think you would. Not much point in suggesting I read some economics literature. I decided economics is mostly nonsense when I took a single economics class in college. The class was all about opposing positions on nearly everything in the field of economics. I decided it was just another analysis of human behavior and not better or worse than all the other analyses of human behavior. Human nature isn't stable enough to analyze accurately. I think economics is important but I don't think those who deal in it do a very good job with it. Just opinion. I realize my opinion is of no interest to economics but it is important me. It is what it is.

 

Inflation is about prices. You need to explain why we should accept your definition of inflation.

Inflation was always about markets.

My understanding of economics has allowed me to become a multimillionaire. Nonsense? No.

Incompetent instruction,