Socialist Hollande elected president of France

[mbig]

part of the problem is politicians lie and get away with it.

For instance, they can lie about a budget surplus that never exists. unfortunately, the ignorant people in the world, such as yourself, treat these lies as gospel.
then the ignorant people go around spreading these lies, and it becomes impossible to deal in realities as this false realty has become the truth.
so stop being part of the problem. Educate yourself. America did not have a surplus in the 90's. It was a lie embraced by all major politicians and the main stream media.

It maybe did not have a surplus, but new debts were much lower than they had been before. America was economically much better off under Clinton than under Bush jr., which is a fact.

Which makes me think you are not a real libertarian. You think military expenditures suddenly don't belong into the category of "big government". That's hypocritical. Go educate yourself and read the CATO page, before they get sacked by the Koch brothers.

Actually we did have several yearly surpluses, or not.
Depends if one uses 'accrual' accounting or not.
FactCheck.org : The Budget and Deficit Under Clinton

So German Guy is basically correct.
One CAN find charts showing the deficit, including medicare and SS, went up if funded in year taxed. (Accrual)
The Myth of the Clinton Surplus |

And did you say Cato?

Because They claim we DID get to surplus, just want to give credit to Gingrich and the GOP:
No, Bill Clinton Didn't Balance the Budget | Stephen Moore | Cato Institute: Daily Commentary
That's YOUR suggested source.


You'll have to pardon the American Republicans/Right in this string as evidenced by several.
They just Freaked Out because the word 'Socialist' is worse than 'Pedophile' to them.
It's like Joe McCarthy all over gain.
It's deficits that caused the problem. There Are responsible/solvent 'nanny states' including our neighbor immediately to the North, Canada, and of course there's Australia, and ie, Norway.

 

[German guy]

Because They claim we Did get to surplus, just wants to give credit to Gingrich and the GOP:
No, Bill Clinton Didn't Balance the Budget | Stephen Moore | Cato Institute: Daily Commentary
That's Your suggested source.

Yeah, maybe CATO wasn't such a good recommendation after all. But although I often disagree with them, they at least seemed sufficiently non-partisan to me. They attacked "big government", no matter if the President in question had a D or a R attached to his name. That's refreshing compared to many self-declared "libertarians" who actually are just partisan Republicans and chose the label because it's fancy.

 

[ARealConservative]

Actually we did have a several yearly surpluses, or not.
Depends if one uses 'accrual' accounting or not.

it's even simpler to understand then that.

everybody that wanted to argue for lower taxes claimed a surplus, and everyone that wanted to heap praise on a sitting democratic president claimed surplus.

those of us that wanted an honest take on if our taxes were enough to cover our expenditures realized this surplus story was a phony.

 

[Grant]

If you're not part of the solution, Grant, you're part of the problem.

Wise words indeed.

My solution is to dissolve the EU and allow each nation to regain its sovereignty.

Problem solved.

 

[Grant]

That said, Germany is not in a popularity contest.

As things stand that's just as well.

As long as there is enough support for a united Europe, things are fine.

There never has been that much popular support for a united Europe and the people's votes have been largely ignored.

Germany does not have to dominate it. And Greece is just one country, most others are not like Greece.

They are all individual countries with their own cultures and own self interest. The obvious should become official reality.

We have no alternative to a united Europe.

Of course you do. That's like saying we have no alternative to a united North America or United Africa.

If we abandon that idea, we are doomed on the long run -- be it because of self-destruction, or be it because globalizing markets will rommel us flat.

This appears to be nothing more than a crisis of confidence, with no basis in reality.

 

[German guy]

As things stand that's just as well.



There never has been that much popular support for a united Europe and the people's votes have been largely ignored.



They are all individual countries with their own cultures and own self interest. The obvious should become official reality.



Of course you do. That's like saying we have no alternative to a united North America or United Africa.



This appears to be nothing more than a crisis of confidence, with no basis in reality.

Grant, you hate Europe from the depth of your heart, and you bitterly want it to fail. Why should I take any of what you say seriously? Give me a reason.

 

[RabidAlpaca]

Grant, you hate Europe from the depth of your heart, and you bitterly want it to fail. Why should I take any of what you say seriously? Give me a reason.

I wouldn't jump to that conclusion so hastily. I've said everything he has and you know I love the hell out of europe. I just believe that I recognize a path that will be better for everybody.

 

[German guy]

I wouldn't jump to that conclusion so hastily. I've said everything he has and you know I love the hell out of europe. I just believe that I recognize a path that will be better for everybody.

I draw that from things he said about Europe before. I had put him on my ignore list because of it (which I really do not easily), but I was not consequential enough, but curiosity caused me to read his postings after all. Maybe I should change that.

 

[Grant]

Grant, you hate Europe from the depth of your heart, and you bitterly want it to fail. Why should I take any of what you say seriously? Give me a reason.

I hate Europe from the depth of my heart?? I want it to fail?

Most, not all, Europeans annoy me and that is exclusively a result of their anti-Americanism, including yours. But that does not mean I want it to fail, though that what it's doing without any input from me. In fact, despite my antipathy for many Europeans, I want it to succeed. A strong and successful Europe is just better for the world economy. I want all people to succeed

When you start trashing the American people I might do the same to the Germans. That's what it's all about. Or i may not respond because I find the anti American tiresome and well past the point. It's not that big a deal to me either way.

 

[Infinite Chaos]

Maybe you are right. I am just not so confident that after a failure of the big project euro, the European nations still have much in their bag to fight for. Probably it would start an inevitable slippery-slope towards European disintegration.

Much as I would be against the UK joining the euro (currently), I just can't see the currency failing. I know that there are rumours of Irish holdings being transferred to sterling and other currencies because of problems in Greece and there have been falls in stock markets across the globe but these are temporary problems.

I do think the eurozone expanded too far too fast in the same way the EU itself expanded too far and too fast, structural adjustment will be painful and we aren't sure whether or when Greece's exit will take place but it has become a little more likely with the prospect of a Syriza bloc minority government.

However, the euro hasn't devalued and is still a major business currency and more importantly the EU is still a major business market - I'd rather see it change to what we were originally sold (a market place) than collapse entirely.

 

[obvious Child]

Well, here is your chance to enlighten me.

You already got a new one ripped here. I see no reason to open another one of you.

Furthermore, if you want to see a truly conservative political party, you have to go Europe. The cut-everything-kick-out-everyone-who-isn't-white parties actually exist there.

 

[LaughAtTheWorld]

I think you're wrong. Sarkozy and Merkel have been pursuing entirely the wrong economic strategy that has ensured that a number of EU member states have returned to negative growth. In bailing out the banks and not stipulating that such bail outs must be released back into the economy in the form of business credit they have vastly increased public debt and simultaneously squashed economic growth. Debt will not get repaid until economies begin to generate wealth. That cannot be generated on fresh air. No investment, no growth, no wealth and hence, no debt reduction.

Merkozy's austerity-only strategy is a recipe for recession and depression. Hollande seems to recognise this. Obama recognises this. Unless Merkel begins to recognise this the entire Eurozone project is doomed. I don't believe that she wants that, but then I don't believe she'll be driving the project after next year's German federal election.

I don't agree with the current European atmosphere of austerity-only either. I believe in modest austerity, one that is a marathon, instead of a dramatic sprint that will only have negative effects, as we're seeing from Greece, Portugal, Spain, etc... I just think that Hollande's concentration on overregulating the financial markets and putting huge restraints on the rich will ruin the economy

 

[LaughAtTheWorld]

You already got a new one ripped here. I see no reason to open another one of you.

Furthermore, if you want to see a truly conservative political party, you have to go Europe. The cut-everything-kick-out-everyone-who-isn't-white parties actually exist there.

That Dutch politician Wilders or something makes me sick. Marine Le Pen is also disgusting

 

[Australianlibertarian]

In the 50's the US had 91%. Hell the highest our income tax was on top earner was at 94% at one point, and it didnt drive business's out we actually PROSPERED tremendously in those years..

I'd like to whether any taxpayers were actually paying that rate. There is the stated tax rate, and then there is the effective tax rate once you take into account various deductions.

 

[Red_Dave]

I thought about it some more. On one side, I believe austerity is necessary, but I assume there are many different approaches to austerity. You don't need to go full Merkel to improve your budget, it can be moderated to be socially more agreeable.

So maybe "Eurobonds" wouldn't be bad. Sure, it means a higher burden for the low interest countries such as Germany, but on the other side, it would make austerity easier for the less well-off countries. And it would stabilize the eurozone as a whole.

So why not? Hollande is up to something here. So is much of the German opposition. Introducing eurobonds wouldn't mean abandoning austerity, if the stability pact remained intact, but it would make it less hard for the populations in the respective countries.

Can someone explain to me where we get the bizarre idea that austerity is an appropriate response to a banking crisis? I simply do not see the link between the two. If the issue is debt that then why is this used as the basis for opposition to higher taxes? I would have thought that would have been the other way round.

 

[Manc Skipper]

Such rates were not uncommon in the UK either.
It seems the Beatles weren't happy about it back in the Sixties.

"Let me tell you how it will be
There's one for you, nineteen for me
'Cause I'm the taxman, yeah, I'm the taxman

Should five per cent appear too small
Be thankful I don't take it all
'Cause I'm the taxman, yeah I'm the taxman..."

 

[Slartibartfast]

Can someone explain to me where we get the bizarre idea that austerity is an appropriate response to a banking crisis? I simply do not see the link between the two. If the issue is debt that then why is this used as the basis for opposition to higher taxes? I would have thought that would have been the other way round.

Some people want a smaller government so therefore the solution to all problems is a smaller government.

 

[Red_Dave]

Some people want a smaller government so therefore the solution to all problems is a smaller government.

That's kinda the point, its entirely driven by ideology and has nothing to do with the crisis.

 

[Centinel]

Can someone explain to me where we get the bizarre idea that austerity is an appropriate response to a banking crisis?

It's not a response to a banking crisis. It's a response to out of control government spending and unsustainable government debt.

 

[Red_Dave]

It's not a response to a banking crisis. It's a response to out of control government spending and unsustainable government debt.

And yet its rarely discussed in a different breath from the recession.

 

[Centinel]

And yet its rarely discussed in a different breath from the recession.

Yeah, that's odd.

 

[Red_Dave]

Yeah, that's odd.

I don't think its odd at at all but very deliberate (if very slimey and disingenuous)

 

[Centinel]

I don't think its odd at at all but very deliberate (if very slimey and disingenuous)

Why do you think they're always discussed together? What is the agenda?

 

[alexa]

Why do you think they're always discussed together? What is the agenda?

Possibly the difficulty comes from the reality that politicians are in no position to rectify the situation. They are dealing in politics, trying to prove they are the best person/party to do the job while the problem lies in the global nature of finance and banking. They do not have a solution so they try their usual blame the other guy.

Unless we are ready to reverse monetary integration and financial globalisation, and accept the economic and political consequences, there is no alternative but to create a new institutional framework, with new rules, both within the eurozone and at global level. Our policies have run out of control19.”
Wolfgang Münchau.
-snip

“Behind all this, however, lies the structural problem – the mismatch between global economics and local politics. States have been shedding power to globalisation. The big lesson has been about the extent to which globalised capitalism has outstripped the capacity of national governments to manage it21.”
Philip Stevens, Financial Times

And Samuel Brittan similarly argues that the problem is not leadership. It is that the financial
markets have got out of control:
“I have no 10-point programme for making “finance less proud”, as Winston Churchill
once put it. … It is more a matter of recognising, at every point of policy decision, that the
free movement of artificially created electronic money across frontiers is not on a par
with the free movement of goods and services, let alone more basic human freedoms,
and recognising this not only for developing countries but for the so-called advanced ones
as well22.”

The counter-narrative, then, is that matters are out of control for structural reasons. And this again echoes positions in the classical popular literature on management. Thus, Warren Buffett writes that
“When a management with a reputation for brilliance tackles a business with a reputation
for poor fundamental economics, it is the reputation of the business that remains
intact23.” Translated to the financial crisis, Buffett’s adage fits perfectly. As the months pass and the
problems pile up, it is the reputations of the leaders that are being shredded, while that of the European financial and fiscal system has changed little.

-snip

And it is our Buffett-like argument that as things stand: the financial system is not under control; it is not under control because it has (albeit unintentionally) been designed that way; that in the event of major disruption that absence of control will lead to catastrophe; and, crucially, that the character of politics is actively adding to the complications.


http://www.cresc.ac.uk/sites/default/files/Deep Stall - CRESC WP110.pdf

 

[alexa]

Alexis Tsipras is seeking talks with Hollande....

Eurozone crisis live: Greek exit fears growing as coalition talks continue | Business | guardian.co.uk