Democrats/Hillary voters only --- Are you happy with Tim Kaine as the VP choice?

FluffyNinja said:

And then there is this..... She should be ashamed for what? Attempting to perhaps bring her party back closer to center....like her husband did? (Who was, incidentally, one of the most successful US presidents of the past 50 years....fiscally speaking.) :thinking

Click to expand...

Largely because of a tech bubble he had absolutely nothing to do with.

The contemporary American 'centre' is the first world right wing, also known as neoliberalism, and there is no value in moving towards that.


As for Hillary's VP, the corporatist shill picked a corporatist shill; of course it's a horrid choice.

Surrealistik said:

Largely because of a tech bubble he had absolutely nothing to do with.

The contemporary American 'centre' is the first world right wing, also known as neoliberalism, and there is no value in moving towards that.


As for Hillary's VP, the corporatist shill picked a corporatist shill; of course it's a horrid choice.

Click to expand...

Someone else already mentioned the "tech bubble" and I addressed it in another post. Its very easy to retrospectively go back and piece together causality to give more or less credit to a certain factor which played a part in an end result. The tech bubble alone isn't the only factor in the rising economic tide of the 90's. And there were other economic and political factors which even made the "tech bubble" possible. I really don't care to argue the minute details. Shall we just leave it at, "Clinton's administration created an atmosphere that was friendly towards international trade, investment, business growth, and international trade...and he lucked out that in the process, a tech boom did indeed occur." Is that a fair assessment?

As far as your other two comments......merely opinion and I dismiss them as such.

FluffyNinja said:

Someone else already mentioned the "tech bubble" and I addressed it in another post. Its very easy to retrospectively go back and piece together causality to give more or less credit to a certain factor which played a part in an end result. The tech bubble alone isn't the only factor in the rising economic tide of the 90's. And there were other economic and political factors which even made the "tech bubble" possible. I really don't care to argue the minute details. Shall we just leave it at, "Clinton's administration created an atmosphere that was friendly towards international trade, investment, business growth, and international trade...and he lucked out that in the process, a tech boom did indeed occur." Is that a fair assessment?

Click to expand...

Only if you acknowledge his indisputable culpability in the 2007-8 financial crisis, which he very much helped lay the foundation for (strangling derivatives regulation, Glass Steagall repeals: Bill Clinton - 25 People to Blame for the Financial Crisis - TIME).

As far as your other two comments......merely opinion and I dismiss them as such.

Click to expand...

It's not really a true point of dispute that the voting records and policy stances for both of them are consistent with the vested interests of their biggest donors; you can call that arrangement whatever you like, but I feel 'shill' is rather apt.

Also no, I don't at all see the comparative value of neoliberalism vis a vis comparative social democrat economies in the vein of north/northwestern Europe, the Commonwealth, Japan and the whole of Scandinavia in terms of the quality of life of your typical citizen.

Surrealistik said:

Only if you acknowledge his indisputable culpability in the 2007-8 financial crisis, which he very much helped lay the foundation for (strangling derivatives regulation, Glass Steagall repeals: Bill Clinton - 25 People to Blame for the Financial Crisis - TIME).

Click to expand...

Again, there are a plethora of factors which lead to the rise and fall of an economy as complex as ours. To ascribe the preponderance of the blame on any one individual.....even the POTUS is simply an exercise in bias and intellectual dishonesty.

Also no, I don't at all see the comparative value of neoliberalism vis a vis comparative social democrat economies in the vein of north/northwestern Europe, the Commonwealth, Japan and the whole of Scandinavia in terms of the quality of life of your typical citizen.

Click to expand...

Apples and oranges. No European nor Asian state with any semblance of a "social democrat economy" is even remotely the size of the US either in population or in geography. Also, it's intellectually dishonest to compare, say, a Scandinavian state, which have generally small and homogeneous populations, to the US, which is a nation with a large, heterogeneous population rooted in foreign immigration. You can tout all of the "quality of life" statistics you'd like.....but you cant overlook these very glaring differences.Also, shall we compare the size of the budgets of the US to those of any individual European State, save Russia? I'm sorry, I will simply have to call you out on this one.

FluffyNinja said:

Again, there are a plethora of factors which lead to the rise and fall of an economy as complex as ours. To ascribe the preponderance of the blame on any one individual.....even the POTUS is simply an exercise in bias and intellectual dishonesty.

Click to expand...

Culpability != absolute responsibility.

There is nothing disingenuous about investing him with well earned partial albeit considerable responsibility for one of the worst financial catastrophes in US history; he has most certainly earned it.

Apples and oranges. No European nor Asian state with any semblance of a "social democrat economy" is even remotely the size of the US either in population or in geography. Also, it's intellectually dishonest to compare, say, a Scandinavian state, which have generally small and homogeneous populations, to the US, which is a nation with a large, heterogeneous population rooted in foreign immigration. You can tout all of the "quality of life" statistics you'd like.....but you cant overlook these very glaring differences.Also, shall we compare the size of the budgets of the US to those of any individual European State, save Russia? I'm sorry, I will simply have to call you out on this one.

Click to expand...

I keep hearing that the US simply cannot replicate these systems because they're not scalable and because their populations are homogenoeous, and the people who keep forwarding this sophistic argument keep failing to provide actual evidence demonstrating that these in fact are material barriers to their successful adoption and implementation (extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence).

Furthermore, several of these countries do in fact have comparably diverse populations: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_immigrant_population

Surrealistik said:

I keep hearing that the US simply cannot replicate these systems because they're not scalable and because their populations are homogenoeous, and the people who keep forwarding this sophistic argument keep failing to provide actual evidence demonstrating that these in fact are material barriers to their successful adoption and implementation (extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence).

Furthermore, several of these countries do in fact have comparably diverse populations: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_immigrant_population

Click to expand...

I went to your wiki-link. Two things I'd like to point out, then I will do my best to answer your "material barrier" question. First I feel we need to address the link you posted and the concept of sheer numbers and ratios. I fail to see how the demographic map or the charts strengthen your position at all. Clearly the map and initial chart show immigrants as a percentage of population. That's fine, and it would indeed indicate that several European nations have populations which are as diverse as the US. However; let us take a look at these numbers in context and perhaps you may concede to my position (if only by a little) that, as you put it, "the US simply cannot replicate the social democratic economies of European states"......and furthermore, that to judge the US based on its apparent inability to provide a higher standard of living for its citizens, is grossly unfair.....and even reflects a bit of intellectual dishonesty. I will even use the site you linked as a source. Please bear with me, this could go a bit long, but I think it will be worth your time. It will likely take two separate posts. I apologize in advance.

Surrealistik said:

I keep hearing that the US simply cannot replicate these systems because they're not scalable and because their populations are homogenoeous, and the people who keep forwarding this sophistic argument keep failing to provide actual evidence demonstrating that these in fact are material barriers to their successful adoption and implementation (extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence).

Furthermore, several of these countries do in fact have comparably diverse populations: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_immigrant_population

Click to expand...

(1) The US has over 46 million foreign immigrants or nearly 15% of its national population. As a percentage, other European nations seem to be in line with this. However; when we look at sheer numbers, the US has nearly FOUR TIMES as many foreign immigrants as the next closest nation. And of course, this study only accounts for documented immigrants. Conservative estimates by the US Census Bureau and the INS put the number of undocumented immigrants in the US a somewhere near 12 million. if we ad that to the 2005 numbers from your site, that brings the number of foreigners residing in the US to nearly 60 million. This is greater than the TOTAL population of any single European state with the exception of Russia, Germany, France, The UK, and Italy. The latter three barely have total populations which exceed just our immigrant population. While most of these immigrants blend with the culture and become productive citizens, many of them still qualify for minority status according to US demographic standards. If you are aware of US educational, small business, licensing, lending, etc. polices at all...you know that simply having "minority status" in the US qualifies the individual (regardless of socio-economic status) for a wide range of benefits under those previously stated areas. To deny that this creates a huge cost vacuum is, well, to simply deny facts. Just a quick example that I've witnessed personally. I live, and teach college and HS courses in a region where a relatively large number of Vietnamese immigrants and their families reside. I had a Vietnamese student last year that I mentored and helped to apply for college scholarships and acceptance. I literally sat down with the parents to fill out a financial aid application. The family consisted of Father, mother and three children. The father owned a large fishing boat and a seafood company which he obtained years earlier through a Federal grant and low-interest subsidized loan program. His reported after-tax earnings for the previous year were a little over $300,000. Because of his immigrant status and his line of work, purchases made for his business are also given tax-exempt status. So, you seem like an intelligent guy, and anyone with a basic knowledge of economics knows that these costs get shifted to someone either to tax payers who pick up the tag or through higher prices charged to non-exempt citizens by private businesses. The student also received "special eligibility" grants for college totaling $40,000. This was just ONE example that I personally experienced. If you fail to see how this cost burden on a wider scale can create a "material barrier" (from the providers side), then I really don't know what else to say.


(2) My second point will be shorter and it deals with the educational and socio-economic makeup of our immigrants compared to those of European states. This is in no way meant to stereotype nor to degrade or devalue any particular group but one simply cannot overlook the fact that a proportionally large number of our immigrants come from Caribbean Island Nations, South, and Central America. Literally Third World Latin American countries which are primarily agricultural. A very large number of THESE immigrants have little or no formal education, and other than farming or construction, the majority have no high-paying skills which are in demand in the US employment market. Virtually none hold needed licenses required to do specialized work and for most, there is a significant language barrier. Compare that to say, Sweden....where 90% of the population is Swedish and the next largest ethic group is Finn at a whopping 3%.


Material barriers? I don't know. You'll have to be the judge. If you still fail to accept that the US deals with a much more extensive, costly, and complex situation in the challenge of providing higher standards of living for its population, and you fail to see the material barriers found here which are not found in most European states....well, then I have just wasted some bandwidth and I am sorry. I did my best. Ciao

SmokeAndMirrors said:

Then you should know all about the impact of Clinton's deregulation, which he himself openly states were part of what led to the recession. This is all numbers, acknowledged even by the person who helped create them.

What conspiracy? Just typical political short-sightedness. He said it was something he just didn't think through enough, in his attempts to appear congenial. I more or less believe him.

You know what they say about assumptions.

Click to expand...

It is no more fair to blame Clinton for banking deregulation than it is to blame him for NAFTA. These were Republican ideas written by Republican politicians and passed by a Republican Congress. Then there was Greenspan who touted the deregulation like it was the 2nd coming of Christ. Clinton signed the bill as a lame duck too, after Bush had been declared President. Had Gore prevailed it might have been different. It was not something he asked for or even wanted.

FluffyNinja said:

(1) The US has over 46 million foreign immigrants or nearly 15% of its national population. As a percentage, other European nations seem to be in line with this. However; when we look at sheer numbers, the US has nearly FOUR TIMES as many foreign immigrants as the next closest nation. And of course, this study only accounts for documented immigrants. Conservative estimates by the US Census Bureau and the INS put the number of undocumented immigrants in the US a somewhere near 12 million. if we ad that to the 2005 numbers from your site, that brings the number of foreigners residing in the US to nearly 60 million. This is greater than the TOTAL population of any single European state with the exception of Russia, Germany, France, The UK, and Italy...

Click to expand...

Percentages matter, not absolute numbers, because capacity for immigration should scale with the size of the overall population obviously.

Second, even with birthright immigrants counted, which increases the amount to 80-85 million, it's still rivaled by the likes of Australia, Hong Kong, Luxemborg, Singapore, Lichenstein, Israel, New Zealand and Canada.

Third, anecdotes do not impress or persuade; you need to specifically quantify the supposed overall costs of immigration and diversify as a net sink in proportional excess vis a vis other countries, and furthermore directly show that it directly accounts, alongside the population size, for an inability to implement these programs as opposed to more likely modes of prevention such as lobbying, money in politics, and political cronyism/corruption that has come to domineer US federal policy: https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites...testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf

(2) My second point will be shorter and it deals with the educational and socio-economic makeup of our immigrants compared to those of European states. This is in no way meant to stereotype nor to degrade or devalue any particular group but one simply cannot overlook the fact that a proportionally large number of our immigrants come from Caribbean Island Nations, South, and Central America. Literally Third World Latin American countries which are primarily agricultural. A very large number of THESE immigrants have little or no formal education, and other than farming or construction, the majority have no high-paying skills which are in demand in the US employment market. Virtually none hold needed licenses required to do specialized work and for most, there is a significant language barrier. Compare that to say, Sweden....where 90% of the population is Swedish and the next largest ethic group is Finn at a whopping 3%.

Click to expand...

Again, broad claims of qualitative nonsense that demonstrates nothing substantive or compelling; actual numbers on national educational attainment shows the US to be roughly in line with OECD averages. In fact, the US leads some other European countries with higher overall standards of living in terms of tertiary education.

iguanaman said:

It is no more fair to blame Clinton for banking deregulation than it is to blame him for NAFTA. These were Republican ideas written by Republican politicians and passed by a Republican Congress. Then there was Greenspan who touted the deregulation like it was the 2nd coming of Christ. Clinton signed the bill as a lame duck too, after Bush had been declared President. Had Gore prevailed it might have been different. It was not something he asked for or even wanted.

Click to expand...

No one forced Clinton to pass either of those things. In fact Clinton lobbied for the commodities deregulation per the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000: How the Clinton Team Thwarted Effort to Regulate Derivatives | Why I Am Cancelling My Documentary on Hillary Clinton

Surrealistik said:

Percentages matter, not absolute numbers, because capacity for immigration should scale with the size of the overall population obviously.

Second, even with birthright immigrants counted, which increases the amount to 80-85 million, it's still rivaled by the likes of Australia, Hong Kong, Luxemborg, Singapore, Lichenstein, Israel, New Zealand and Canada.

Third, anecdotes do not impress or persuade; you need to specifically quantify the supposed overall costs of immigration and diversify as a net sink in proportional excess vis a vis other countries, and furthermore directly show that it directly accounts, alongside the population size, for an inability to implement these programs as opposed to more likely modes of prevention such as lobbying, money in politics, and political cronyism/corruption that has come to domineer US federal policy: https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites...testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf




Again, broad claims of qualitative nonsense that demonstrates nothing substantive or compelling; actual numbers on national educational attainment shows the US to be roughly in line with OECD averages. In fact, the US leads some other European countries with higher overall standards of living in terms of tertiary education.




No one forced Clinton to pass either of those things. In fact Clinton lobbied for the commodities deregulation per the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000: How the Clinton Team Thwarted Effort to Regulate Derivatives | Why I Am Cancelling My Documentary on Hillary Clinton

Click to expand...

I read you links and there is still no reason to say that Clinton did anything but fall for Greenspan's (and others) spiel that regulation was not needed because bankers were not "the same" as they were in the 1920's and would never risk collapse because of risky "bets". If you want a man to blame it would be Phil Gramm, who's name is on the bill. There is also no reason to believe the legislation would not have been signed by GW Bush who was already made President when Clinton signed the bill into law.

The exception to any post-crisis self-reflection is former Senator Phil Gramm. Although he was one of the chief architects of the radical gutting of financial regulations and oversight rules during the two decades that preceded the financial crisis, the former senator remains a stubborn believer that banks and markets can regulate themselves.

Perhaps more than anyone else, Gramm drove the legislation that allowed banks to get much bigger and derivatives to run wild. His name is on the law -- the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999 -- that overturned the Glass-Steagall Act, a Depression-era law that forced commercial banks to get out of the risky investment-banking business.

How responsible was Gramm for the financial crisis? Consider the following from the New York Times in 2008:

In one remarkable stretch from 1999 to 2001, he pushed laws and promoted policies that he says unshackled businesses from needless restraints but his critics charge significantly contributed to the financial crisis that has rattled the nation.

He led the effort to block measures curtailing deceptive or predatory lending, which was just beginning to result in a jump in home foreclosures that would undermine the financial markets. He advanced legislation that fractured oversight of Wall Street while knocking down Depression-era barriers that restricted the rise and reach of financial conglomerates.

And he pushed through a provision that ensured virtually no regulation of the complex financial instruments known as derivatives, including credit swaps, contracts that would encourage risky investment practices at Wall Street's most venerable institutions and spread the risks, like a virus, around the world.
The causes of the crisis are complex and developed over many years. But if you want to hold a single elected official responsible for the collapse of American International Group -- if any one event could have taken down the entire financial system, that was it -- it would have to be Gramm.

Click to expand...

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2015-07-27/no-apologies-from-phil-gramm-for-financial-crisis

iguanaman said:

I read you links and there is still no reason to say that Clinton did anything but fall for Greenspan's (and others) spiel that regulation was not needed because bankers were not "the same" as they were in the 1920's and would never risk collapse because of risky "bets". If you want a man to blame it would be Phil Gramm, who's name is on the bill. There is also no reason to believe the legislation would not have been signed by GW Bush who was already made President when Clinton signed the bill into law.

Click to expand...

Phil Gramm was only one person who shared culpability for that bill; Clinton indisputably holds a substantial degree of responsibility whether or not he actively lobbied for it (and he almost certainly did per his administration: the fact that Larry Summers openly and emphatically supported it before Congress is most certainly is damning on this point, as well as his officials sidelining the CFTC before essentially shutting it out of the regulatory process on derivatives per the Treasury and the CFMA) because he signed off on the thing, and he's not a dumb guy. So yes, I will blame Phil Gramm, just as I will continue to blame Bill Clinton (as well as others like Greenspan), because they are _both_ liable.

Surrealistik said:

Phil Gramm was only one person who shared culpability for that bill; Clinton indisputably holds a substantial degree of responsibility whether or not he actively lobbied for it (the fact that Larry Summers of his administration openly and emphatically supported it before Congress is most certainly is damning on this point) because he signed off on the thing, and he's not a dumb guy. So yes, I will blame Phil Gramm, just as I will continue to blame Bill Clinton (as well as others like Greenspan), because they are _both_ liable.

Click to expand...

And if Clinton had refused to sign as a lame duck do you deny that Bush would have signed it anyway?

iguanaman said:

And if Clinton had refused to sign as a lame duck do you deny that Bush would have signed it anyway?

Click to expand...

We'll never know what Bush would have done, or if the bill even would have resurfaced by then, but Clinton's administration, and almost certainly Clinton himself, had advocated for this bill and made it possible. The events of some possible future do not obviate his factual culpability in laying the groundwork for 2007-8. He made the wrong decision and he should be held accountable for that, alongside the others who did the same, end of story.

Surrealistik said:

We'll never know what Bush would have done, or if the bill even would have resurfaced by then, but Clinton's administration, and almost certainly Clinton himself, had advocated for this bill and made it possible. The events of some possible future do not obviate his factual culpability in laying the groundwork for 2007-8. He made the wrong decision and he should be held accountable for that, alongside the others who did the same, end of story.

Click to expand...

Bush was gung ho on all deregulation and he carried it into the SEC and other Depts. so it is fair to say he would have signed any similar bills making Clinton's action fairly irrelevant.
He has also admitted his mistake but if you were informed about he situation at the time you would know there was tremendous pressure for him to do what he did and was not in a position to resist it.

iguanaman said:

Bush was gung ho on all deregulation and he carried it into the SEC and other Depts. so it is fair to say he would have signed any similar bills making Clinton's action fairly irrelevant.
He has also admitted his mistake but if you were informed about he situation at the time you would know there was tremendous pressure for him to do what he did and was not in a position to resist it.

Click to expand...

What are you talking about?

His administration and the Treasury were both on board and lobbied on its behalf; Clinton per all the evidence available agreed with the bill, not opposed it.

And again, after the Bill was defeated, we simply cannot know if it would have been reiterated and voted on.

Tim Kaine speaks fluent Spanish. One of the things that really helped W. was giving a speech in Spanish. Kaine's got that covered.