U.S. Politics: Kraving for Kavanaugh

[Larry of the Lawn]

2 hours ago, SweetPea said:

:

.

.

Ah yes, genocide is on the corner, no doubt.

Yes, and it's going to be the progressives/liberals that determine who are the nazis and who are simply conservatives. You really don't see the problem here?

You're implying white people can't suffer from racism.

That's not a troll, that's Ebu Gogo.

Here's one.

Again, you probably aren't familiar with it because you don't live here, but Latinos are being rounded up on immigration charges into camps to face misdemeanor charges.  Trump is pardoning guys like Arpaio and Bundy's militia.  There might not be genocide happening right now, but the warning bells are going off.  I'm not sure if you've studied world history but maybe briefly looking over what happened in Germany from say 1930-1945 would be instructive.

To your other points.

It's actually really easy to tell a Nazi or white supremacist from a conservative.  They usually self-identity for you.  

And in the US, white people cannot be the victims of structural racism.  

[Jo498]

42 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

While my preference for a strong welfare state and my Keynesianism makes me certainly left of center with regard to the US political spectrum, I'm probably more "centrist" than some on the left.

I am not sure about the US but in Germany/Europe the stances wrt these two points that used to be common to almost ALL mainstream parties, regardless of their names, have shifted so far away that what was utterly centrist in Kohl's mid-1980s conservative party (as well as Mitterand's socialists), seems between fringe social democracy or far out leftism in today's landscape. 

[Larry of the Lawn]

1 hour ago, Serious Callers Only said:

 

Eh... if you read the whole WP article it mentions that his salary was around $220k as DC Circuit judge, he held that position from 2006 on.  Not crazy to think that he could have the paid off the debt out savings.  Sure, this deserves some scrutiny, but it certainly isn't a smoking gun or anything.  

[Morpheus]

Trump gave a press conference this morning saying that he got the NATO members to agree to increase spending past the previous target. Immediately after, Macron gives a presser saying  that is not true.

The meeting with Putin should go great, but we will never really know, will we?

[Bennis of the Brown Shield]

24 minutes ago, Jo498 said:

I am not sure about the US but in Germany/Europe the stances wrt these two points that used to be common to almost ALL mainstream parties, regardless of their names, have shifted so far away that what was utterly centrist in Kohl's mid-1980s conservative party (as well as Mitterand's socialists), seems between fringe social democracy or far out leftism in today's landscape. 

Come on, that is ridiculous. Both Germany and France still have welfare states. 

There has been a drift to the right regarding economic polices in Western Europe since the end of the Cold War, but it hasn't been that large.

Besides, neoliberalism is being rolled back in both Europe and the USA now anyway. 

[LongRider]

3 minutes ago, Morpheus said:

The meeting with Putin should go great, but we will never really know, will we?

The meeting won't be great for us, but should help Make Russia Great Again, at least, I see that as Putin's goal.  45's goal, if he has any, would to be to keep the kompromat the Russian's have on him locked up in Putin's safe.

[Rippounet]

Just now, Khaleesi did nothing wrong said:

Come on, now you are being ridiculous. 

There has been a drift to the right regarding economic polices in Western Europe since the end of the Cold War, but it hasn't been that large.

Besides, neoliberalism is being rolled back in both Europe and the USA now anyway. 

Are you being ironic? Because keynesian policies are definitely considered left or far-left throughout Europe today. 

[Bennis of the Brown Shield]

4 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

Are you being ironic? Because keynesian policies are definitely considered left or far-left throughout Europe today. 

I guess that's why governments and central banks didn't intervene during the financial crisis. Oh wait. 

[OldGimletEye]

Just now, Khaleesi did nothing wrong said:

Besides, neoliberalism is being rolled back in both Europe and the USA now anyway. 

Uh, neo liberalism (however you define it) or maybe I should say traditional conservative policies are hardly being rolled back. If it was, then what was the Republican Party's corporate tax cut all about?

I'd agree that many "neo liberal" suppositions are being challenged in academic research, but saying that is quite different then saying policy changes were made.

During the GFC, conservatives and Republicans were simply wrong about monetary and fiscal policy, and bank regulation, but as a matter of politics they largely won. Tales of Swabian Housewives seems to be quite persuasive with large segments of the public.

[OldGimletEye]

Just now, Khaleesi did nothing wrong said:

I guess that's why governments and central banks did no interventions during the financial crisis. Oh wait. 

In the United States they did, but they did not go far enough with either fiscal or monetary policy. And conservatives went around worrying about "rampant inflation being around the corner" being utterly clueless about the realities of a liquidity trap.

And the ECB made some really bad errors regarding monetary policy, and the whole Euro project constrained too many states in engaging in appropriate fiscal policy. The worst example of course being Spain which suffered 25% unemployment needlessly.

While I appreciate your attempt at humor here, it kind of fails here, badly.

 

[TheKitttenGuard]

People want to focus on the Socialism part of the Nazi yet want to utterly the National(ist) part, especially since it comes first. In order of priority it is first.

[Bennis of the Brown Shield]

14 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

Uh, neo liberalism (however you define it) or maybe I should say traditional conservative policies are hardly being rolled back. If it was, then what was the Republican Party's corporate tax cut all about?

I'd agree that many "neo liberal" suppositions are being challenged in academic research, but saying that is quite different then saying policy changes were made.

During the GFC, conservatives and Republicans were simply wrong about monetary and fiscal policy, and bank regulation, but as a matter of politics they largely won. Tales of Swabian Housewives seems to be quite persuasive with large segments of the public.

The tax cut can be interpreted as neoliberal yes, but the other things he does aren't. His anti-globalization policies, trade war threats, and focus on domestic self sufficiency are the opposite of what neoliberalism is about, and seem like a return to the 1930-1980 order. 

11 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

In the United States they did, but they did not go far enough with either fiscal or monetary policy. And conservatives went around worrying about "rampant inflation" being utterly clueless about the realities of a liquidity trap.

And the ECB made some really bad errors regarding monetary policy, and the whole Euro project constrained too many states in engaging in appropriate fiscal policy. The worst example of course being Spain which suffered 25% unemployment.

Not going far enough is one thing. But they still intervened in order to smooth out the business cycle, instead of just sitting back and letting the bottom drop out of the world economy like what was done in the thirties. 

That Keynesian policies aren't practiced as strongly as half a century ago is not the same thing as them being regarded as left wing fringe stuff. 

AFAIK the most popular view among economists is still the "neoclassical synthesis" one, which is combination of Keynesian and Neoclassical thought. 

[Jo498]

56 minutes ago, Khaleesi did nothing wrong said:

Come on, that is ridiculous. Both Germany and France still have welfare states. 

There has been a drift to the right regarding economic polices in Western Europe since the end of the Cold War, but it hasn't been that large.

Besides, neoliberalism is being rolled back in both Europe and the USA now anyway. 

The US also has some kind of welfare state.

In Germany the only party who demands tax rates close to the 1980s are the Leftists. They are also the only ones who would like to have welfare and pension levels comparable to that time, not to start with public/governmental control of key infrastructure (rails, energy, public services, housing etc.)

30-35 years ago ALL of this was mainstream in the *conservative* party of Helmut Kohl. Now it is supposed to be leftist pipe dreams because of "globalization" without any chance of being backed by Greens or mainstream Social democrats in a country like Germany.

I don't deny that there have been similar shifts in foreign policy (also to the "right" in some sense, i.e. towards "responsibility" = interventionism) and to the "left" in fields like gay marriage and gender mainstreaming. The latter is why some social conservatives claim a leftward shift of conservative/mainstream parties. But in economic and foreign policy the shift has been very clearly in a different direction and it has also be accompanied (I am not making claims about causation) by a rise in social/economic inequality in the last 40 years.

But my point was only that in a time of shifting stances, "centrist" changes its meaning. A 1978 centrist in economic/social policy would be on the far left today, a 1978 centrist wrt to gay marriage (that it is unthinkable) would be considered a hateful rightwing bigot in 2018.

[Bennis of the Brown Shield]

16 minutes ago, Jo498 said:

The US also has some kind of welfare state.

In Germany the only party who demands tax rates close to the 1980s are the Leftists. They are also the only ones who would like to have welfare and pension levels comparable to that time, not to start with public/governmental control of key infrastructure (rails, energy, public services, housing etc.)

30-35 years ago ALL of this was mainstream in the *conservative* party of Helmut Kohl. Now it is supposed to be leftist pipe dreams because of "globalization" without any chance of being backed by Greens or mainstream Social democrats in a country like Germany.

I don't deny that there have been similar shifts in foreign policy (also to the "right" in some sense, i.e. towards "responsibility" = interventionism) and to the "left" in fields like gay marriage and gender mainstreaming. The latter is why some social conservatives claim a leftward shift of conservative/mainstream parties. But in economic and foreign policy the shift has been very clearly in a different direction and it has also be accompanied (I am not making claims about causation) by a rise in social/economic inequality in the last 40 years.

Yes, but at the end of the day both Germany and France have low quite low income inequalities, and definitely can't be compared to the USA on that front. That's my point. There has been a rightward shift in economic policies in Europe too, but a lot of people have an exaggerated view of how large it has been. 

Take a look at the GINI coefficients here: http://www.oecd.org/social/income-distribution-database.htm 

Then consider that non-OECD countries tend to have higher income inequalities, at least after taxes and transfers (not to mention the underground economy). 

 

[Rippounet]

11 minutes ago, Khaleesi did nothing wrong said:

Yes, but at the end of the day both Germany and France have low quite low income inequalities, and definitely can't be compared to the USA on that front. That's my point. There has been a rightward shift in economic policies in Europe too, but a lot of people have an exaggerated view of how large it has been. 

I'd rather have that than the reverse tbh. And given the fact that over 80% of the benefits of production now go to the 1% in France, how long do you think it's going to take for that GINI coef' to change? Are we supposed to just wait until that happens before denouncing the policies that have been implemented in the last décades? I'd rather stay in that situation where France can't be compared to the US thank you very much.

[Mexal]

1 hour ago, larrytheimp said:

Eh... if you read the whole WP article it mentions that his salary was around $220k as DC Circuit judge, he held that position from 2006 on.  Not crazy to think that he could have the paid off the debt out savings.  Sure, this deserves some scrutiny, but it certainly isn't a smoking gun or anything.  

I could care less about his finances. I wish they'd focus on his speeches and rulings. That's what really matters.

[Bennis of the Brown Shield]

42 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

I'd rather have that than the reverse tbh. And given the fact that over 80% of the benefits of production now go to the 1% in France, how long do you think it's going to take for that GINI coef' to change? Are we supposed to just wait until that happens before denouncing the policies that have been implemented in the last décades? I'd rather stay in that situation where France can't be compared to the US thank you very much.

What do you mean with benefits of production? Do you mean new economic growth? 

Anyway, protectionist and anti-globalization policies should be good for you then. It will be easier for workers to bargain for higher wages if it is difficult for their employers to threaten to outsource their labor to other countries, and also easier for the employers to approve said wage increases if they don't have to worry as much about foreign competitors offering cheaper products. 

It won't be very fun at all for the developing world though. So I suppose it depends on how important you consider it is that they also get to modernize and achieve decent lives.  

Because lets not forget that while income increases for working and middle class people in rich countries have slowed down a bit since neoliberalism became vogue, many poorer countries have experienced dramatic improvements in living standards and reductions in poverty levels. 

So I think that even if you accept the premise that neoliberalism might not have been that positive for non-wealthy people in the West, you still run into rather difficult moral questions when you discuss scaling it back. 

[Kalbear]

4 hours ago, SweetPea said:

Here's one.

Sorry, going after the alt-right is not the same as going after a centrist. Try again.

[mormont]

30 minutes ago, Mexal said:

I could care less about his finances. I wish they'd focus on his speeches and rulings. That's what really matters.

Not sure I agree. This administration is characterised by corruption. The finances matter.

[Mexal]

15 minutes ago, La Albearceleste said:

Not sure I agree. This administration is characterised by corruption. The finances matter.

Sure but I doubt this is one of those situations since Kavanaugh has been bred for this role by the conservative establishment. I'm fine with looking into the finances to see if there is anything there but front page stories about him going into debt to buy Nationals tickets just doesn't do shit for me. I'm much more interested in his jurisprudence and his speeches that suggest future decisions.