Politics & Stuff

[Fulham Broadway 16,845]

20 minutes ago, Fernando said:

Yes war is two armies, but this is similar to usa war on terror. 

Again I still say if Hamas cared for their people they would have ended this long ago. That's what I would do If I was in power and I see my people getting butcher. 

I think even if the hostages were returned to Israel the slaughter would continue - they would use any excuse

Ha'aretz today actually says the Likud cabinet have no intention of liberating the hostages, the whole intention is to annexe Gaza for Israel. Thats an Isaraeli newspaper

[Vesper 28,801]

50 minutes ago, cosmicway said:

Your donations go to Hamas and are used for rockets and terrorist operations in Israel / Europe.
Most of the aid organizations are Hamas fronts.
Even the foodstuffs that come directly from UN no one knows what happens to them because they are delivered to Hamas.
Hamas are still administering Gaza so who else might be the recipient of aid ? ... Netanyahu ?

you made false claims, simple as that

1 hour ago, cosmicway said:

There is no humanitarian aid.
All the money / supplies / foodstuffs is diverted to the black market and is used for rockets by Hamas.

of course there is humanitarian aid sent (much to the unhappiness of the 'kill em all' ultra RW Jews)

and not all of it is diverted to the black market (I do not deny that some is, likely a majority of it is, but you claimed ALL)

[ZAPHOD2319 4,477]

He is becoming more unhinged everyday. Now his safe place Fox News is calling him on his nonsense and he goes further into the weeds. It’s crazy.

 

[Vesper 28,801]

18 minutes ago, Fulham Broadway said:

the whole intention is to annexe Gaza for Israel.

and the entire West Bank

the hardcore RW zio-fascist crew openly believe in the Final Solution for the Palestinians

Bibi kicked off the war invoking Amalek 

they would have no problems with an Auschwitz for Palestinians

same for the yank chistofascists, 99% who are Trumpers

 

 

Bible, King James Version

1 Samuel

https://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/k/kjv/kjv-idx?type=DIV2&byte=1195551

1 Sam.15

[1] Samuel also said unto Saul, The LORD sent me to anoint thee to be king over his people, over Israel: now therefore hearken thou unto the voice of the words of the LORD.
[2] Thus saith the LORD of hosts, I remember that which Amalek did to Israel, how he laid wait for him in the way, when he came up from Egypt.
[3] Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.

 

 

The Dangerous History Behind Netanyahu’s Amalek Rhetoric

His recent biblical reference has long been used by the Israeli far right to justify killing Palestinians.

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2023/11/benjamin-netanyahu-amalek-israel-palestine-gaza-saul-samuel-old-testament/

 

[cosmicway 1,323]

12 minutes ago, Vesper said:

and not all of it is diverted to the black market (I do not deny that some is, likely a majority of it is, but you claimed ALL)

It's not all phoney if it comes from the UN itself and not compromised.
If it is in the form of money it has to go to Hamas-Hezbollah because there is no other administration in Gaza !
The various private assistance funds are all fronts.

[Vesper 28,801]

6 minutes ago, cosmicway said:

The various private assistance funds are all fronts.

absolute bollocks

you have a fundamental problem

you make universal statements

zero exceptions for many of your claims I have seen you make over the years, regardless of the subject

making universal statements almost always renders those statements false, as one only needs to find one exception to invalidate the universal statement

it really is the most basic of errors

 

[Vesper 28,801]

Conservatives Use Trump Assassination Attempt to Target Women in Anti-Diversity War

It’s a move to enshrine values into law, but it’s not beyond the realm of possibility.

https://prospect.org/justice/2024-10-16-conservatives-trump-assassination-attempt-target-women/

Right-wing activists with ties to former President Donald Trump’s administration and the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025 are gearing up for another volley in conservatives’ war against diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) policies.

This time, they’re targeting women, who have historically benefited the most from affirmative action. They’re framing the planned litigation as a move to protect women, despite the fact that it would diminish women’s hiring prospects. And the argument relies on a sexist and false internet meme—claiming that the attempted assassination of Trump in July can be blamed on “DEI” policies at the U.S. Secret Service to hire more women—which was originated by conservatives themselves, and has not spread beyond right-wing circles.

The Mountain States Legal Foundation (MSLF), a conservative legal movement group, and the Independent Women’s Forum (IWF), which has been described as an anti-feminist women’s organization, are actively searching for plaintiffs to sue the Secret Service over its reported goal to attain a workforce that’s 30 percent female by 2030. The groups characterize those efforts derisively as an illegal “quota” and “DEI hiring.”

William Trachman, MSLF’s general counsel, told me they’re planning to bring a “straight up Title VII claim that using sex as a factor in hiring is discriminatory.” He added that they would want to establish a precedent that would ultimately apply to the private sector too, which would mean that virtually any explicit gender parity or diversity programs—like the nascent moves to accelerate gender balance on corporate boards—could be legally challenged.

The laws were “designed to create color blindness and gender blindness, and the fact that it’s unpopular is not a reason to avoid following the law,” Trachman said.

The claim, in other words, is one of reverse discrimination: that the historically and presently male-dominated Secret Service discriminates against men, the socially dominant sex, in employment decisions. This is much like the reverse-racism claims that underlay the historic 2023 Supreme Court ruling that outlawed race-conscious university admissions policies.

At the same time, the groups are claiming that efforts to increase women’s representation can be “divisive,” because they breed resentment in male colleagues and make women appear unqualified for their roles. That last argument is a sexist notion that surfaced and was circulated in right-wing circles, and has since been promoted almost exclusively by Republican elected officials and the very people planning to file the lawsuit.

The claim is one of reverse discrimination: that the historically and presently male-dominated Secret Service discriminates against men.

In the Court’s recent affirmative action decision, Justice Clarence Thomas took a parallel argument a step further, arguing without evidence that race-conscious admissions policies lead to “inevitable” underperformance by Black and Latino students because they’re less prepared than their white and Asian counterparts. That prompted a rare, terse, and direct rebuke from his liberal colleagues, including the Court’s first Latina and first Black female justices, who have themselves been beneficiaries of affirmative action. “Justice Thomas speaks only for himself,” the liberals wrote in dissent.

The Secret Service has also rebuked similar arguments about women coming from internet trolls, the MSLF, and a handful of Republican representatives. Anthony Guglielmi, the agency’s chief of communications, said in a statement in July that the Secret Service is “appalled by the disparaging and disgusting comments against” female officers, calling it “an insult to the women of our agency to imply that they are unqualified based on gender.” Trump himself has also deflected the attacks and criticisms of the female agents involved in the incident, defending the qualifications of female Secret Service members.

Guglielmi told me the agency doesn’t comment “on pending or proposed litigation” when I asked about the campaign by MSLF.

As things stand, the groups’ planned litigation seems like a long shot, for a number of reasons—not least because current law is pretty clear that programs like the Secret Service’s remain generally legal. Still, the recent and stunning successes by other groups associated with the conservative Christian legal movement make their campaign worth paying attention to.

TRACHMAN, WHO PREVIOUSLY SERVED in the Trump administration’s Department of Education, cited the Secret Service’s public commitments to prioritize opportunities for women as evidence of its alleged discrimination. He also pointed to the agency’s training and fitness standards, which are evaluated in consideration of gender (as well as age).

Still, when I initially asked about the planned lawsuit, Trachman led by connecting the litigation to the attempted assassination of Trump in Butler, Pennsylvania. He recalled how a gunman had managed to obtain a clear line of fire toward the former president in July, and wasn’t intercepted until after he shot at and injured Trump, killed another attendee, and injured several others. “The DEI may have interacted with that event,” Trachman said.

Later, May Mailman, director of IWF’s advocacy and litigation arm, told me that they are partnering with Trachman’s organization to combat the harmful stereotype that women in male-dominated industries or prominent roles arrived there only because of diversity policies. Mailman is director of the Independent Women’s Law Center.

“Maybe it’s surprising that a women’s group would be against” hiring policies aimed at hiring more women, Mailman said. But “when agencies make it a quota to have some set number of women by some set year, completely arbitrarily, it minimizes women who are in these law enforcement agencies, and makes it seem like they are tokens.”

IWF’s participation in the lawsuit isn’t actually all that surprising.

The group and its version of conservative feminism have a long and well-studied history, from Phyllis Schlafly to Sarah Palin to Alabama Sen. Katie Britt and other women in today’s conservative movements.

Classifications based on sex generally receive less legal scrutiny in a constitutional “equal protection” challenge than those based on other characteristics, like race or religion.

Estelle Freedman, a Stanford University historian specializing in feminist studies, has commented on how some conservative groups agree with aspects of feminist politics from a libertarian perspective—focused on individual rights—while other right-wing organizations brand themselves as women’s groups in a “more cynical or more politically exploitative” manner that seeks “to subvert or appropriate the ‘feminist’ label” in order to draw women’s votes. The overall goal, masked by this claim to women’s equality, is to roll back progress on civil and human rights, as the United Nations Entity for Gender Equality recently explained.

The IWF’s history traces back to a group formed in 1991 to support Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas after he was accused of sexual harassment, The Intercept reported in 2020. The group and its affiliated 501(c)(4), the Independent Women’s Voice, have received funding from organizations connected to right-wing political operatives like the Koch brothers and Leonard Leo, according to reporting in May by Ms. magazine.

It also has a long record in the conservative culture wars and far-right legal movement, including lobbying against Title IX and the Affordable Care Act, and opposing the Violence Against Women Act, the Equal Rights Amendment, the Equality Act, the Paycheck Fairness Act, and proposals on paid family and medical leave.

More recently, IWF was a member of the right-wing coalition that put together Project 2025, which includes further attacks on women’s reproductive rights, including “abortion surveillance,” and attacks on the rights of LGBTQ people.

THE CAMPAIGN LEADERSHIP ALSO HAS fairly significant records as conservative legal culture warriors.

Mailman gained prominence in right-wing politics partly because of her role representing a group of women who unsuccessfully attempted to sue their University of Wyoming sorority for admitting a transgender woman. Her co-counsel in that case was Gene Schaerr, a noted conservative lawyer who filed a Supreme Court brief in 2015 arguing—against all available evidence and common sense—that permitting gay marriage will cause 900,000 abortions over the next 30 years, The Washington Post reported in April that year.

Mailman later became a top White House policy adviser in the Trump administration, during which she authored an email that floated the idea of releasing apprehended migrants into so-called sanctuary cities, The New York Times reported in April 2019. She was also previously vice president of a group called Restoring Integrity and Trust in Elections, or RITE, which was founded in 2022 by prominent Republicans like former attorney general William Barr and GOP strategist Karl Rove, and generally sought to make it harder to vote, including supporting a radical, failed legal theory that would have given state lawmakers nearly unfettered power over federal elections.

Her partners on the “men’s rights” case against the Secret Service have a similarly long history in right-wing movements, as well as ties to Project 2025.

The Supreme Court’s current interpretations of the anti-bias laws under Title VII are favorable to the Secret Service.

Mountain States Legal Foundation has opposed business regulations, environmental protections, and affirmative action policies since at least the late 1970s, and has argued cases involving conservative political causes before the Supreme Court. The group supported the plaintiffs in the landmark 2018 case Masterpiece Cakeshop, which established that some religious business owners can legally decline to serve LGBTQ people, for example.

According to its own press releases, MSLF has retained the press relations shop ATHOS PR to work on its campaign against the Secret Service’s diversity programs. ATHOS was co-founded by Alexei Woltornist, a former public affairs official in the Department of Homeland Security during the Trump administration. Woltornist also appears in Project 2025 training videos that instruct future political appointees to ignore mainstream news outlets and focus only on right-wing media.

Trachman, MSLF’s general counsel, also helped draft the Trump administration’s 2020 Title IX regulations, which generally made it harder to report sexual harassment and sexual violence, and instituted procedures that primarily favored male students accused of harassment or assault.

In recent years, Trachman and MSLF have filed several “reverse discrimination” lawsuits, including a failed case alleging that a white corrections officer was forced to resign because he was intimidated by anti-bias training that included definitions of “white fragility.”

CLASSIFICATIONS BASED ON SEX GENERALLY receive less legal scrutiny in a constitutional “equal protection” challenge than those based on other characteristics, like race or religion. In other words, government and business have more leeway to consider sex and gender in their decision-making.

Moreover, the Supreme Court’s current interpretations of the anti-bias laws under Title VII are favorable to the Secret Service.

“If the Secret Service can show that it’s trying to address historical exclusion, and that it’s doing so in a way that does not unduly burden other groups, then its program would withstand challenge,” said Naomi Schoenbaum, a professor at George Washington University Law School who specializes in employment law and gender in the law.

Schoenbaum seemed stunned that the group actually plans to connect a “men’s rights” discrimination claim to what Trachman described as a “partially successful assassination attempt” of a presidential candidate, effectively transforming a meme from the manosphere into a “legal” argument.

“The law is often a tool to make a political statement,” Schoenbaum said. “You file a lawsuit like this, and it gets covered by Fox. Is that savvy pandering to a base of young men who feel like young women are eclipsing them? Or is that stupid because you’re going to further alienate women?”

Still, MSLF’s litigation efforts and other campaigns should be taken seriously. The same dynamics in the Secret Service case can be observed in the successful campaign to overturn race-conscious college admissions, which was achieved despite the risk of further alienating people of color from the Republican Party.

The right-wing political operative Edward Blum led a successful effort to gut the Voting Rights Act and to outlaw race-conscious admissions policies largely by cold-calling people until he found willing plaintiffs, whom he then matched with lawyers and secured funding to pay for the litigation. The theories in those cases were almost the polar opposite of anything that most lawyers understood about the VRA and the Supreme Court’s prevailing affirmative action jurisprudence; yet here we are.

In the same sense, the MSLF’s efforts might seem ridiculous today, even as they’re only a half-step away from becoming a deadly serious threat to women’s rights tomorrow.

Edited October 16 by Vesper

[cosmicway 1,323]

17 minutes ago, Vesper said:

absolute bollocks

you have a fundamental problem

you make universal statements

zero exceptions for many of your claims I have seen you make over the years, regardless of the subject

making universal statements almost always renders those statements false, as one only needs to find one exception to invalidate the universal statement

it really is the most basic of errors

 

One exception ?
What kind of exception ? You ?
Were you present to see where your money went ?
Also one exception means that if you donate money nine out of ten goes to Hamas, instead of ten out of ten.

I wonder why the Germans did not organize some similar campaigns in the war, using the Catholic church perhaps.
Their poor tanks could not cross the Ardennes for lack of oil.

[Fernando 6,458]

1 hour ago, Fulham Broadway said:

I think even if the hostages were returned to Israel the slaughter would continue - they would use any excuse

Ha'aretz today actually says the Likud cabinet have no intention of liberating the hostages, the whole intention is to annexe Gaza for Israel. Thats an Isaraeli newspaper

I'm not sure about that. That is just pure speculation. 

[Vesper 28,801]

3 minutes ago, cosmicway said:

One exception ?

you really are bad at gaslighting

here is one (all that is needed)

I can assure you that the Swedish governemt is not a front for Hamas 

https://www.government.se/government-policy/governments-response-to-situation-in-israel-and-palestine/swedens-humanitarian-support-to-gaza/

Sweden’s humanitarian support to Gaza

Due to the humanitarian crisis in Gaza, Sweden has increased its humanitarian assistance by approximately SEK 520 million since 7 October 2023. Sweden has long been one of the largest donors to several humanitarian actors operating in Gaza.

Fighting between Israel and the terrorist group Hamas has now continued since the attacks carried out by Hamas on 7 October. The humanitarian situation in Gaza is devastating and the needs are acute and immense. The Government considers that an immediate humanitarian ceasefire is necessary. Better humanitarian access must be provided for support to reach those in need.

In the light of the humanitarian crisis in Gaza, Sweden has increased its humanitarian assistance by approximately SEK 520 million since 7 October 2023.

For support to reach those in need, humanitarian access must be vastly improved. This includes providing additional routes into Gaza and the possibility for safe movement of humanitarian staff and transports to all parts of Gaza. All parties to the conflict have a responsibility under humanitarian law to ensure that the civilian population’s humanitarian needs are met. 

At Sweden’s initiative, more than 30 countries have jointly encouraged Israel to allow increased humanitarian access to Gaza and enable better, more secure and sufficiently large deliveries.

Statement by Minister for International Development Cooperation Johan Forssell 

Together with other donors, Sweden is in dialogue with Israel on this matter.

 

[cosmicway 1,323]

11 minutes ago, Vesper said:

you really are bad at gaslighting

here is one (all that is needed)

I can assure you that the Swedish governemt is not a front for Hamas 

https://www.government.se/government-policy/governments-response-to-situation-in-israel-and-palestine/swedens-humanitarian-support-to-gaza/

Sweden’s humanitarian support to Gaza

Due to the humanitarian crisis in Gaza, Sweden has increased its humanitarian assistance by approximately SEK 520 million since 7 October 2023. Sweden has long been one of the largest donors to several humanitarian actors operating in Gaza.

Fighting between Israel and the terrorist group Hamas has now continued since the attacks carried out by Hamas on 7 October. The humanitarian situation in Gaza is devastating and the needs are acute and immense. The Government considers that an immediate humanitarian ceasefire is necessary. Better humanitarian access must be provided for support to reach those in need.

In the light of the humanitarian crisis in Gaza, Sweden has increased its humanitarian assistance by approximately SEK 520 million since 7 October 2023.

For support to reach those in need, humanitarian access must be vastly improved. This includes providing additional routes into Gaza and the possibility for safe movement of humanitarian staff and transports to all parts of Gaza. All parties to the conflict have a responsibility under humanitarian law to ensure that the civilian population’s humanitarian needs are met. 

At Sweden’s initiative, more than 30 countries have jointly encouraged Israel to allow increased humanitarian access to Gaza and enable better, more secure and sufficiently large deliveries.

Statement by Minister for International Development Cooperation Johan Forssell 

Together with other donors, Sweden is in dialogue with Israel on this matter.

 

Even Swedish government has no control what happens after the aid is delivered.
 

[Fulham Broadway 16,845]

2 minutes ago, Fernando said:

I'm not sure about that. That is just pure speculation. 

Funny thing is they have a history of it since 1948. Nakba, 1967 Naksa Golan Heights, Sinai peninsular, Annexing Jerusalem 1980, another 320 illegal settlements (UN) in last 10 years etc etc

Even this year Israel has seized 23.7 sq km more than in the last 20 years...

Even Likud cabinet ministers have said Gaza is to be new Israeli settlements

[cosmicway 1,323]

The Palestinians of Gaza cannot go to Egypt.
The Egyptians will shoot them.
If the Israelis ... annex Gaza then those Palestinians will become Israeli citizens !
Neither seems to work.
The Israelis are saying that their purpose is to capture the Hamash leadership.
After that ?

The only real answer seems to be to get Iran.
But Iran is a country that has never been conquered.
Only Alexander the Great did conquer them and he wanted to create a mixed Greek-Persian empire.
But his epigones were not good enough and Persian empire rose again and the new rulers of the western world, the Romans, were never able to defeat them.
In the more recent history Iranians played the British and the Russians one against the other and they managed to stay independent.
The country is big.
It's much bigger than Iraq meaning that an operation desert storm is very difficult.
Same holds for Turkey btw. An operation desert storm against Turkey is likewise very difficult.
And same held for Jugoslavia and Romania during the days of communism. The Russians much liked to get both of them and Ceausesku was a rebel - strange that he did n't like Gorbatchev's ideas but in the sixties-seventies he was a rebel to the Soviets. But the size of those two countries made the task formidable for even the Soviet war machine.

It is my opinion nevertheless that only by getting Iran -through carpet bombing, MOABS- will the war end.

Edited October 16 by cosmicway

[Vesper 28,801]

2 hours ago, cosmicway said:

Even Swedish government has no control what happens after the aid is delivered.
 

non sequitur 

I was addressing your false claim that all organisations giving humanitarian aid were fronts for Hamas.

[cosmicway 1,323]

3 hours ago, Vesper said:

non sequitur 

I was addressing your false claim that all organisations giving humanitarian aid were fronts for Hamas.

Greece sends too:

https://hellenicaid.mfa.gr/apostoli-ellinikis-anthropistikis-voitheias-gia-tin-lorida-tis-gaza-12-apriliou-2024/

but no doubt all of this cargo was abducted by Hamash.
Those who request for money are all fronts.

[Vesper 28,801]

An analysis of the new European fiscal rules

Sebastian Gechert, Dario Guarascio, Philipp Heimberger, Bernhard Schütz and Francesco Zezza 15th October 2024

October 15th marks the deadline for EU member states to submit fiscal plans, influencing economic stability and public debt for years to come.

https://www.socialeurope.eu/austerity-at-our-doorstep-an-analysis-of-the-new-european-fiscal-rules

October 15^th is the deadline for member states to send their multi-year fiscal plans to meet reformed EU fiscal rules to the European Commission (EC). These plans are extendable up to seven years in the presence of investments and structural reforms consistent with the EU’s objectives. The plans will have to move within the constraints defined by the EC for each Member State, consistent with the debt sustainability analysis (DSA) on which the new system of fiscal rules relies heavily.

In this framework, the DSA plays a crucial role in defining the perimeter of fiscal policies implemented at the national level. By defining individual countries’ margins of manoeuvre over a multi-year horizon, the new scheme is supposed to ensure that the debt ratio is “on a plausible downward trajectory or remains at prudent levels, even under adverse scenarios”. The criteria used to define expenditure trajectories require that, without resorting to further fiscal consolidation, the public debt ratio falls or remains below the 60% of GDP threshold by the end of the adjustment period and in the following ten years; the debt ratio should fall with a “sufficiently” high probability; and the fiscal deficit should fall below 3 per cent and remain there in the medium term.

In a recent study, we have raised important questions about the potential impact of the wave of consolidation that governments will have to implement to meet the new rules. We analyse the sensitivity of the official DSA assumptions on how fiscal consolidation affects growth and public debt ratios. By introducing assumptions that are in line with the scientific literature and more realistic than the official assumptions used by the EC, we show how fiscal consolidations resulting from the new fiscal framework could affect economic growth more adversely than the European Commission suggests, which will also make it more difficult to bring down public debt ratios. This is particularly true in countries with high debts.

The analysis focuses on the four largest EU economies, which comprise about three-quarters of overall economic activity in the euro area: France, Germany, Italy and Spain. The latter face different challenges in terms of deficit reduction: while Italy, France and Spain have to undertake historically large adjustments from 2025 onwards, Germany needs a much more modest adjustment plan. Under a four-year adjustment plan, Italy is required to improve its structural primary balance by about 1.08 per cent of GDP per year to meet the new parameters. France and Spain will have to make an annual adjustment of 0.94 and 0.89 per cent of GDP, respectively, while Germany’s required consolidation is much lower at 0.11 per cent per year.

Our study identifies three key elements that, in the context of the DSA model currently used by the EC, may lead to an underestimation of the negative growth effects of fiscal consolidation.

• Fiscal multiplier. In the short term, a fiscal consolidation of EUR 1 billion reduces economic output by EUR 0.75 billion (a multiplier effect of 0.75). This multiplier value is presumably too small, particularly in times of crisis and for expenditure-based consolidations, and it is also smaller than in the study to which the EU Commission refers.
• Persistence of consolidation effects. In the medium term, the EC assumes that the multiplier effect will disappear completely three years after the adjustment and that economic output will return to its previous growth path. Here too, the DSA lags behind the EC’s own publications, which discuss longer-lasting negative growth effects. The more recent literature shows that fiscal policy measures typically continue to have an effect in the medium term.
• Absence of spillover. The EC considers the effects of consolidation for each member state individually. However, the austerity measures in France, for example, may also have a considerable impact on the export-dependent German economy and therefore on German public finances due to close trade links. These spillover effects of fiscal consolidation measures are discussed elsewhere by the EC as an important influencing factor, but are currently ignored in the DSA.

The simulations presented in our study compare the DSA projections for GDP growth and the public-debt-to-GDP ratio for Italy, Germany, France and Spain based on the official assumptions with alternative scenarios obtained by modifying the basic assumptions, in line with the academic literature. The changes concern a somewhat larger fiscal multiplier (0.9 instead of 0.75), slower dissipation of the consolidation effects (5 years instead of the 3 years) and the presence of ‘spillovers’ (consolidation in one country also influences its partners based on how tight the trade links are).

If one compares the combined scenario (where all the changes just illustrated are present) with what the EC envisages, a more worrying picture emerges, particularly for those economies that currently show a high debt/GDP ratio. Although GDP returns to the original potential GDP path in all countries as early as 2033, the weak growth in the meantime leads to significantly higher public debt ratios in 2038: +3.9 percentage points of GDP in France and Italy, +3.1 percentage points in Spain and +1.7 percentage points for Germany.

In Italy and France, GDP will almost stagnate in the EC’s baseline adjustment scenario from 2025 to 2028. In our alternative scenario, economic output even shrinks over this four-year period. Due to these effects, public debt ratios will initially continue to rise despite the strong austerity measures. It is not unlikely that the consolidation targets will be missed in the political process under these conditions and that governments will therefore have to go for even larger fiscal adjustments during the economic downturn.

The large euro area countries with high public debt ratios France, Italy and Spain will have to adjust significantly more than their EU peers. These countries may experience more adverse domestic growth effects than officially expected under the new fiscal rules. In particular, this will be the case if fiscal multipliers turn out larger and/or if the negative short-run growth effects from fiscal adjustment dissipate more slowly than assumed by the EC. Although a level shift in public debt ratios need not endanger debt sustainability in the medium run, economic stagnation and a larger than expected increase in public debt ratios in the short run may erode the confidence of voters and bond investors. Should cross-country spillovers materialise, Germany and other EU countries with strong trade links will experience lower growth due to the restrictive fiscal policy stance by important trading partners. Compensating for the drag on growth due to lower import demand from EU trading partners may not be an easy task in the current environment. This is especially worrying, since the German export-led engine is now facing renewed headwinds, as highlighted by ECB’s Isabel Schnabel just a few days ago.

The results from our study suggest that a discussion about the negative growth effects of the upcoming austerity policy and the implications for public finances is urgently needed. The DSA assumptions are essential to the reformed EU fiscal rules and should be discussed scientifically and politically. With the renewed focus on austerity, expanding public investment to meet the challenges of renewing infrastructure, climate change, and European sovereignty is becoming a distant prospect. As Mario Draghi’s recent report suggests, policymakers should be open to changes that allow for more public investment, including a European investment fund.

Edited October 17 by Vesper

[Vesper 28,801]

JD Vance says Trump did not lose the 2020 US election

After dodging the issue for weeks, Republican vice-presidential candidate JD Vance said unequivocally on Wednesday he believes false claims that Donald Trump did not lose the 2020 election.

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/jd-vance-says-trump-did-not-lose-2020-us-election-2024-10-16/

Oct 16 (Reuters) - Taking questions from reporters at a campaign event in Williamsport, Pennsylvania, Vance was again asked if Trump lost to President Joe Biden four years ago.

 

“On the election of 2020, I've answered this question directly a million times. No! I think there are serious problems in 2020,” Vance said. “So, did Donald Trump lose the election in 2020? Not by the words that I would use.”

 

Trump, the Republican candidate for president in 2024, continues to falsely claim that he lost the 2020 election due to extensive voter fraud, a view shared by millions of his supporters. Numerous inquiries, however, have found no evidence of fraud.

 

During his current run for president, Trump has suggested he will challenge the results if he does not prevail in the Nov. 5 contest against Democrat Kamala Harris, the US vice president.

 

His efforts to overturn the 2020 election led to his indictment by federal and state officials. He still awaits trial in those cases. His refusal to accept the outcome also sparked the Jan. 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol by thousands of his supporters.

 

Vance, a first-term U.S. senator, made headlines when he sidestepped the question during his debate with Harris’ running mate, Tim Walz, on Oct. 1, saying he was focused on “the future.”

 

That led Walz to rebuke him. “That’s a damning non-answer,” he said.

 

In Williamsport, Vance said he was not espousing “some crazy conspiracy theory” in arguing Trump won. Instead, he blamed the election outcome on online censorship by large tech companies.

 

Pennsylvania is considered perhaps the most critical of the seven battleground states that will determine the election.

 

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

[Fulham Broadway 16,845]

"I'm making this video in response to Trump's statement that autoworkers just 'assemble parts,' out of a box," she said. "I challenge you, Trump, to one full 12-hour day in any auto assembly plant. I want to see you assemble parts out of a box for 12 hours! Until you accept and complete this challenge, until you actually work a manual labor job, you keep the name of the UAW out of your mouth!"

Trump has tried courting union workers for endorsements this year, although the United Auto Workers, led by Shawn Fain, have been particularly resistant to his overtures.

Little Hands, Bone Spurs