Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
October 25, 2014, 04:18:34 pm
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Please delete your old personal messages.

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  General Politics
| |-+  International General Discussion (Moderators: Peter, afleitch)
| | |-+  France General Discussion II: Living under Marxism
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... 35 Print
Author Topic: France General Discussion II: Living under Marxism  (Read 135530 times)
Armand Duval
Zanas46
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1971
France


View Profile
« Reply #75 on: October 09, 2012, 05:08:39 pm »
Ignore

Well, the government backed off on their will to increase the tax business holders have to pay when they sell their shares in their companies and make money with that.

We don't have a left-wing government, I really can't see it.
Logged

"F**k you Lion, I'm the King !" Mr Bear

IN NATE WE TRUST

Long Live Bretzels !


That's not how the left works.  We make swords out of our enemy's iron thrones.

My French blog
dead0man
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 22563
United States


Political Matrix
E: 6.84, S: -4.52

View Profile
« Reply #76 on: November 07, 2012, 01:49:26 am »
Ignore

Francois Hollande lurches Right in historic U-Turn to save French economy
Quote
Company taxes will fall by €20bn a year equal to 1pc of GDP, to be phased in gradually by 2015 under a convoluted system of rebates.

Premier Jean-Marc Ayrault said it amounted to a 6pc cut in unit labour costs, enough to close the gap with eurozone rivals. "France is not condemned to a spiral of decline, but we need a national jolt to regain control of our destiny," he said.

The mid-rate of VAT for restaurants and services will jump from 7pc to 10pc. The top rate will rise slightly to 20pc. Spending cuts will plug the revenue gap in order to meet the EU’s 3pc deficit target.

Critics call it the most humiliating U-turn in French politics since François Mitterrand abandoned his disastrous experiment of "Socialism in one country" under a D-Mark currency peg in 1983.

Mr Hollande came to office vowing lower VAT rates to protect the buying power of workers, and called business tax cuts a "gift to the rich". He imposed €10bn of fresh taxes on firms just weeks ago in his 2013 budget, a move that set off a revolt by business leaders.

<snip>
Logged

Benwah [why on Earth do I post something] Courseyay
tsionebreicruoc
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5944
France


View Profile
« Reply #77 on: November 13, 2012, 02:42:05 pm »
Ignore

Within six months Hollande precisely engaged the country in the reform of the tax system and began to bother about the reform of institution, and all of this by finding the most balanced possible ways without betraying themselves, and during an epoch of crisis, and without acting like a slave with Germany even succeeding to partially reorientate some Merkel positions (Banking union).

Frankly, in a pragmatic and realistic perspective, they might be doing the best that can be done.

I can't believe I'm defending Socialistes...

Really, while in the beginning on the mandate I wasn't that hopeful about them given their behavior in the opposition during all those years, I'm not unpleased at all to see what they manage to do so far.

I love how Hollande also keeps managing being the guy that everybody underestimates but succeeds to achieve stuffs, the big press conference he just held wasn't bad at all. So far I'd think he'd typically be in the situation of the guy everybody laugh and loath because people don't see immediate results or would like to have someone with a more impressive attitude, but, unless big bad event, all what he is doing would begin to pay in about 2 years, and lol, Ayrault, which would be replaced after Municipales/Européennes would have only known the bad weather (well, after all he is Breton, he should be used to it...), people who make the discrete tough efforts are rarely paid...

I also loved to see the reaction of all those over annoying barons, of the left and right, after Jospin's proposal to forbid the cumulation of mandates, and all of his other proposals for the renewal of institutions were not unpleasant either.

Vas-y Lionel! Shoote les Barons!

Vas-y Francky c'est bon!
Logged

14/01/2011: Tunisia!!
11/02/2011: Egypt!
20/10/2011: Libya
02/09/2013: Abandon of Syria...
...and of, well, 'all of that'...

Money became totally unfair.
Money became totally senseless.
Let's make Money totally useless...

??/??/20??: EU UU!!

Maybe a little update:

Religion Tradition is people's opium...
MrMittens
Mittens
Full Member
***
Posts: 200


View Profile
« Reply #78 on: November 13, 2012, 03:54:25 pm »
Ignore

Quote
In answer to the first question, of where the line should be drawn, I honestly don't know; this is something that should be decided by an elected legislature, and I think it's enough of an ethical issue that I can't come up with an answer on the spot. Should those who literally cannot afford to pay taxes be forced to pay a rate that they simply cannot provide? No, and I mention that in my post.

Well, that's already a huge weakness in your vision of what "justice" is. Because, from your statements, I gather that a fair tax system is one in which everybody pays the same share. Deviating from that rule means "taking money from someone to give it to someone else" as you said before. If this is the only just system - if, in other words, this is a moral rule - it ought to be universally true (morality is made of categorical imperatives and suffers no exception clauses). So, the possibilities are two. Either your idea of taxation is morally right, which means that it is also morally right to ask a starving man to give up 10% of his income. Or it is not. This doesn't mean it is morally wrong of course, there can be other reasons to support it. But if you yourself admit that your system doesn't work in its pure form, if you admit that there can be an exception, then you cannot, on a moral ground, object to further exceptions, even if enough "exception" will eventually make the system progressive.


Quote
It's not sudden, as there are shades. But nevertheless, there is a boundary; there is a certain point at which you are so poor that 'everyone else's' tax rates shouldn't apply to you, and there is beyond that.


Yeah, I see. But then you have to define what are one's "basic needs". And if you have an extensive definition of what one's "basic needs" are (including things like education, health care, etc.), then the number of people who would be excluded from taxation - and thus the flat rate imposed to the others - would be so high, that the resulting tax system wouldn't be much different from progressive taxation, just rendered completely silly by the fact you would go from paying nothing to paying an enormous amount of taxes.


Quote
Countries that actually have a flat tax (like the Czech Republic and the Baltic states) don't actually seem to have such a high income inequality, though...though I will agree this argument is difficult to refute.

Well, these are countries exiting from communist regimes, so, in terms of income inequalities, the started off very low. Still, if you search for a correlation between flat taxation and income inequality, I'm confident that the result will be clear.


Quote
But it's still not fair because you're taking someone else's money and giving it to someone. That's the point, ultimately -- it's not fair to say, you have a lot, you have a little, give him your stuff. It's fair to ask society to say, help this person who only has a little.

You might not like it, but taking someone else's money and giving it to someone is part of the State's prerogatives. The collective's right to socialize and redistribute a certain part of one's wealth is broadly accepted as a part of the social contract in all modern democracies. It is fairly understandable that you think your money belongs to you and not to your neighbor, but as long as you live in a society and accept its common rule, you also have to accept that such society, through a democratic vote, can oblige you to contribute financially for the society's greater good. There is absolutely nothing unfair with that. Especially considering how much every one of us (and the wealthier in particular) owe to the society and how screwed they would be without it.


Quote
This idea that right-wing economics means you think wealth=merit is pretty old and pretty untrue. I don't think wealth=merit. I think that it is unfair to take another person's things, which they fairly own. This is the key point, and if we can't agree on it there's no use to debating at all. As for the second part of the sentence, we both know that's not necessarily practical.

Well, we've got a huge problem here. Because if wealth doesn't equal merit, this means some people have more than they deserve, and some have less. You can say they have earned their money, but have they earned it by working hard and doing something good for the collective? Have they earned it by inheritance? Have they earned it because they got help from people in a position of power/influence? Have they earned it by gambling (which is what the stock market is about, after all)? Have they earned it by tricking people? If there are so many ways to earn wealth that are unfair and/or detrimental to the greater number, why is the right to enjoy what you earned so sacred?

It's not like, even if wealth equaled merit, progressive taxation would be unfair: after all, the fact you are successful doesn't mean you don't have a moral duty to help those who didn't succeed like you. But the way reality work, and the way money is so often unfairly earn, makes your moral stance further absurd.


Quote
Ah, but if the poor aren't taxed, they require less money from the government to provide basic necessities -- which lessens the amount the middle-class must pay. The poor don't pay, but because of this they get less stuff.

Do you realize that, in all countries which substantial welfare states, the very poor don't pay taxes anyways? Do you know many serious countries where, say, the bottom 5% is taxed? I might be wrong, but I highly doubt it's the case. So your plan is, let's stop taxing the poor who aren't taxed anyways, but in exchange, let's shut down the programs aimed to help them. I'm sure they'll like your idea.


Quote
Would it be, at least in the short run in the US, a tax increase on the middle-class? I'm going to admit, yes. Which is why I don't favor immediate adoption (France is still marching on and making it's tax system worse, which is why I brought this up in the first place). But because I think a flat tax would help the economy (trickle-down, laugh all you want), it would ultimately even out.

Yes, indeed, please let me laugh. A theory which has been put in place for 30 years now and never, ever worked (to be more specific, it produced short-lived bounces followed by huge recessions which canceled all benefits) ought to be laughed at. Or at least it would be laughed at if it hadn't been such a tragedy for mankind, steadily eroding the fruits of decades of social progress and bringing us back to the 19th century.


Quote
The point is that in the long run the middle-class would be helped...

By what, your trickle-down magic? Sure, that's why the median income in the US today is the same as it was back in the 1970s, after years of Reaganomics and tax cuts of all kinds for the wealthy. The same, despite all the growth in the overall wealth. In which hands do you think all that growth ended up? Seriously, it would be nice to at least acknowledge basic realities.


Quote
You could ask 43 countries and several U.S. states who are doing OK...certainly the idea that nobody takes it seriously is simply incorrect. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_tax#Around_the_world

Well, I notice that none of them (tax heavens aside) is a developed western country. This might be indicative of something... If your role model for a country is Czech Republic, Mongolia, Saudi Arabia or Andorra, I would guess something is wrong with your principles.

I'll make a point on your criticisms of the flat tax.  Flat Taxes are more than about economics, a Flat Tax is about morality. It is not moral for someone to have to pay 75% of their income (as I'm guessing you support) just for the 'crime' of being rich. The politics of jealousy has never worked economically, but neither I believe has it ever stood up from a moral viewpoint. The idea 'he has more than me, he must be brought down to my level' is just what is wrong with left-wing thinking on the economy, as opposed to right-wing thinking which suggests 'he has more than me, how can I get to his level'. Hopefully you can guess which is more positive. A flat tax is a perfectly moral tax to adopt, as if all are equal (again a touchstone of the left) surely they should be equal in tax as well.

Also with your criticisms of 'trickle-down', you seem to forget that what came before, attempts to 'guide' the economy as well as priming the pump with excessive government spending, failed dismally in the 1970's, if it could ever be said to have worked. Then of course we have the planned economy. Hopefully that has been totally discredited and will never be tried again. Your criticisms of trickle down as wiping out all the gains of growth is absurd. In 2012, most people have a far higher standard of living than they did in 1972, this supposed 'golden era' of social solidarity and progress.
Logged
Аverroës Nix
Averroës Nix
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 10241
United States


View Profile
« Reply #79 on: November 14, 2012, 10:46:43 am »
Ignore

I'll make a point on your criticisms of the flat tax.  Flat Taxes are more than about economics, a Flat Tax is about morality. It is not moral for someone to have to pay 75% of their income (as I'm guessing you support) just for the 'crime' of being rich. The politics of jealousy has never worked economically, but neither I believe has it ever stood up from a moral viewpoint. The idea 'he has more than me, he must be brought down to my level' is just what is wrong with left-wing thinking on the economy, as opposed to right-wing thinking which suggests 'he has more than me, how can I get to his level'. Hopefully you can guess which is more positive. A flat tax is a perfectly moral tax to adopt, as if all are equal (again a touchstone of the left) surely they should be equal in tax as well.

I just made this point in another thread: If you accept that your pretax income is rightfully yours, any level of taxation will seem unjust. But your pretax income isn't the correct moral baseline from which to base this kind of debate because you don't really own anything except what is protected through laws made and enforced by the state.
Logged

PS: I am using my late mother's Facebook account due to the difficulty of changing identities on Facebook. She has yet to complain.
Acting like I'm Morrissey w/o the wit
Leftbehind
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3181
United Kingdom


View Profile
« Reply #80 on: November 14, 2012, 11:26:05 am »
Ignore

A flat tax is a perfectly moral tax to adopt, as if all are equal (again a touchstone of the left) surely they should be equal in tax as well.
Well all isn't equal - not in the least - and so your equal taxation doesn't remotely apply in our disgustingly unequal societies. Thankfully we have progressive taxation to readdress that to varying degrees.

Your criticisms of trickle down as wiping out all the gains of growth is absurd. In 2012, most people have a far higher standard of living than they did in 1972, this supposed 'golden era' of social solidarity and progress.
Where is your evidence for that? In Britain we've seen the acceptance of significant levels of unemployment, alongside the disappearance of pensions, affordable homing, regulated rents, decent - and rising - wages, affordable and subsidised transport and higher education (with the need for both having risen exponentially). That's the tangible stuff. Other important losses are the belief you'll be bringing up your children into a better future, you're guaranteed a job if you look for one, the belief that if you work hard enough throughout your life you're entitled to a comfortable retirement and that workers have enough strength that you don't have to accept every one of the bosses demands.
« Last Edit: November 14, 2012, 11:32:54 am by Leftbehind »Logged

MrMittens
Mittens
Full Member
***
Posts: 200


View Profile
« Reply #81 on: November 14, 2012, 11:56:58 am »
Ignore

I'll make a point on your criticisms of the flat tax.  Flat Taxes are more than about economics, a Flat Tax is about morality. It is not moral for someone to have to pay 75% of their income (as I'm guessing you support) just for the 'crime' of being rich. The politics of jealousy has never worked economically, but neither I believe has it ever stood up from a moral viewpoint. The idea 'he has more than me, he must be brought down to my level' is just what is wrong with left-wing thinking on the economy, as opposed to right-wing thinking which suggests 'he has more than me, how can I get to his level'. Hopefully you can guess which is more positive. A flat tax is a perfectly moral tax to adopt, as if all are equal (again a touchstone of the left) surely they should be equal in tax as well.

I just made this point in another thread: If you accept that your pretax income is rightfully yours, any level of taxation will seem unjust. But your pretax income isn't the correct moral baseline from which to base this kind of debate because you don't really own anything except what is protected through laws made and enforced by the state.

Yes but we're not living in the world of philosophical debates on the nature of money. We're talking about bread and butter issues here, I believe if someone recieves a pay-packet for a days work done, then frankly that is their money.

A flat tax is a perfectly moral tax to adopt, as if all are equal (again a touchstone of the left) surely they should be equal in tax as well.
Well all isn't equal - not in the least - and so your equal taxation doesn't remotely apply in our disgustingly unequal societies. Thankfully we have progressive taxation to readdress that to varying degrees.

Your criticisms of trickle down as wiping out all the gains of growth is absurd. In 2012, most people have a far higher standard of living than they did in 1972, this supposed 'golden era' of social solidarity and progress.
Where is your evidence for that? In Britain we've seen the acceptance of significant levels of unemployment, alongside the disappearance of pensions, affordable homing, regulated rents, decent - and rising - wages, affordable and subsidised transport and higher education (with the need for both having risen exponentially). That's the tangible stuff. Other important losses are the belief you'll be bringing up your children into a better future, you're guaranteed a job if you look for one, the belief that if you work hard enough throughout your life you're entitled to a comfortable retirement and that workers have enough strength that you don't have to accept every one of the bosses demands.

To answer your first point, what exactly have the rich done wrong in order to merit losing 75% of their income, in order to simply give it to the poor, who may or may not be deserving people.

Your second point, correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think unemployment has passed 12% in the UK since the 1930's. A significant level of unemployment is something like 25-30% out of work. The current unemployment rate is 7.9% I think. Most of the rest of what you say is simply fantasy economics as:

a)
Quote
affordable homing, regulated rents, decent - and rising - wages

The Government doesn't have the power to keep wages at 'decent - and - rising' levels, unless you live in a command economy. The government's attempts to 'guide' the economy as you seem to be suggesting here are doomed to failure.

b)
Quote
Other important losses are the belief you'll be bringing up your children into a better future, you're guaranteed a job if you look for one, the belief that if you work hard enough throughout your life you're entitled to a comfortable retirement and that workers have enough strength that you don't have to accept every one of the bosses demands.

People have had this belief for most of the period between the early 80's and 2008. This loss of belief that your children would have a better future was widespread in the 1970's, in fact so was the belief that western society was on the edge of collapse. Again your belief that people should be 'guaranteed a job if you look for one' is only one that can be achieved by the government taking control and micromanaging the economy. This, 'workers have enough strength that you don't have to accept every one of the bosses demands' is nonsense, its this kind of militant attitude that is the reason for the collapse of western manufacturing not the 'evil policies' of Thatcher and Reagan.
Logged
You kip if you want to...
change08
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8730
United Kingdom


View Profile
« Reply #82 on: November 14, 2012, 12:34:06 pm »
Ignore

Francois Hollande lurches Right in historic U-Turn to save French economy
Quote
Company taxes will fall by €20bn a year equal to 1pc of GDP, to be phased in gradually by 2015 under a convoluted system of rebates.

Premier Jean-Marc Ayrault said it amounted to a 6pc cut in unit labour costs, enough to close the gap with eurozone rivals. "France is not condemned to a spiral of decline, but we need a national jolt to regain control of our destiny," he said.

The mid-rate of VAT for restaurants and services will jump from 7pc to 10pc. The top rate will rise slightly to 20pc. Spending cuts will plug the revenue gap in order to meet the EU’s 3pc deficit target.

Critics call it the most humiliating U-turn in French politics since François Mitterrand abandoned his disastrous experiment of "Socialism in one country" under a D-Mark currency peg in 1983.

Mr Hollande came to office vowing lower VAT rates to protect the buying power of workers, and called business tax cuts a "gift to the rich". He imposed €10bn of fresh taxes on firms just weeks ago in his 2013 budget, a move that set off a revolt by business leaders.

<snip>

At the risk of sounding like leftie-drone, this is awful.

Hollande can't risk making Sarko's mistake and driving his voters into the arms of MLP.
Logged

Franzl
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 22233
Germany


View Profile
« Reply #83 on: November 14, 2012, 12:38:39 pm »
Ignore

Progressive taxation is certainly more than fair to higher earners as well (within reason).

30% to someone making $50,000 a year is much more meaningful and relevant to that person's standard of living than 40% to someone making $1 million.
Logged
Benwah [why on Earth do I post something] Courseyay
tsionebreicruoc
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5944
France


View Profile
« Reply #84 on: November 14, 2012, 12:43:43 pm »
Ignore

Francois Hollande lurches Right in historic U-Turn to save French economy
Quote
Company taxes will fall by €20bn a year equal to 1pc of GDP, to be phased in gradually by 2015 under a convoluted system of rebates.

Premier Jean-Marc Ayrault said it amounted to a 6pc cut in unit labour costs, enough to close the gap with eurozone rivals. "France is not condemned to a spiral of decline, but we need a national jolt to regain control of our destiny," he said.

The mid-rate of VAT for restaurants and services will jump from 7pc to 10pc. The top rate will rise slightly to 20pc. Spending cuts will plug the revenue gap in order to meet the EU’s 3pc deficit target.

Critics call it the most humiliating U-turn in French politics since François Mitterrand abandoned his disastrous experiment of "Socialism in one country" under a D-Mark currency peg in 1983.

Mr Hollande came to office vowing lower VAT rates to protect the buying power of workers, and called business tax cuts a "gift to the rich". He imposed €10bn of fresh taxes on firms just weeks ago in his 2013 budget, a move that set off a revolt by business leaders.

<snip>

At the risk of sounding like leftie-drone, this is awful.

Hollande can't risk making Sarko's mistake and driving his voters into the arms of MLP.

Driving people in the hands of MLP because of this? lol, no. That's not at all the scheme into which MLP could earn voters, it's more likely bad for her, because this measure is seen like a rather balanced and constructive one by most of the classical political class (MEDEF approved of it!), and actually it's part of stuffs that participates to make social relationships more peaceful. It's actually a balanced one, and not something betraying the Socialistes ideas, those who don't like it had to support stuffs like 'Mélenchon'.
Logged

14/01/2011: Tunisia!!
11/02/2011: Egypt!
20/10/2011: Libya
02/09/2013: Abandon of Syria...
...and of, well, 'all of that'...

Money became totally unfair.
Money became totally senseless.
Let's make Money totally useless...

??/??/20??: EU UU!!

Maybe a little update:

Religion Tradition is people's opium...
Velasco
andi
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1684
Western Sahara


View Profile WWW
« Reply #85 on: November 14, 2012, 01:39:17 pm »
Ignore


Your second point, correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think unemployment has passed 12% in the UK since the 1930's. A significant level of unemployment is something like 25-30% out of work. The current unemployment rate is 7.9% I think.
People have had this belief for most of the period between the early 80's and 2008. This loss of belief that your children would have a better future was widespread in the 1970's, in fact so was the belief that western society was on the edge of collapse. Again your belief that people should be 'guaranteed a job if you look for one' is only one that can be achieved by the government taking control and micromanaging the economy. This, 'workers have enough strength that you don't have to accept every one of the bosses demands' is nonsense, its this kind of militant attitude that is the reason for the collapse of western manufacturing not the 'evil policies' of Thatcher and Reagan.

I'd say that a 25-30% unemployment rate is not significant, it's catastrophic. These are the levels that reached USA and Germany in the 30's. Curiously, Spain has reached 25% this year. A 12% of unemployment is terrible enough and a 7.9% rate is regarded as quite bad in countries like USA. Since your nick is 'Mittens' you must be well aware.  I don't want to look like a prophet of disaster, but everybody knows the consequences of that financial crisis of 1929 (Hitler, II World War, etc). Since the current financial crisis has certain parallelisms with the 30's, as some experts like to remember sometimes, we're not living in the better world possible and it's quite worrying the fate of Europe, and not only in the troubled South, if its leaders persist in following the same suicide policies. The reasons of the financial collapse following the Lehman Brothers issue are arguably related to certain economic practices that favoured speculative economy instead of the 'real' or productive economy. Claiming that unions or 'militant attitudes', as you say, are guilty of the downfall of western manufacturing is hilarious, to say the least. Everybody knows that this path to glory was inspired by theories devoutly followed by Thatcher and Reagan.

This thread is derailed by dangerous Marxists, how funny.
Logged

Аverroës Nix
Averroës Nix
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 10241
United States


View Profile
« Reply #86 on: November 14, 2012, 03:49:49 pm »
Ignore

I'll make a point on your criticisms of the flat tax.  Flat Taxes are more than about economics, a Flat Tax is about morality. It is not moral for someone to have to pay 75% of their income (as I'm guessing you support) just for the 'crime' of being rich. The politics of jealousy has never worked economically, but neither I believe has it ever stood up from a moral viewpoint. The idea 'he has more than me, he must be brought down to my level' is just what is wrong with left-wing thinking on the economy, as opposed to right-wing thinking which suggests 'he has more than me, how can I get to his level'. Hopefully you can guess which is more positive. A flat tax is a perfectly moral tax to adopt, as if all are equal (again a touchstone of the left) surely they should be equal in tax as well.

I just made this point in another thread: If you accept that your pretax income is rightfully yours, any level of taxation will seem unjust. But your pretax income isn't the correct moral baseline from which to base this kind of debate because you don't really own anything except what is protected through laws made and enforced by the state.

Yes but we're not living in the world of philosophical debates on the nature of money. We're talking about bread and butter issues here, I believe if someone recieves a pay-packet for a days work done, then frankly that is their money.

First, I'm not talking about money. Second, I was responding to your 'moral' case for a flat tax:

Quote
Flat Taxes are more than about economics, a Flat Tax is about morality. It is not moral for someone to have to pay 75% of their income (as I'm guessing you support) just for the 'crime' of being rich. The politics of jealousy has never worked economically, but neither I believe has it ever stood up from a moral viewpoint. The idea 'he has more than me, he must be brought down to my level' is just what is wrong with left-wing thinking on the economy, as opposed to right-wing thinking which suggests 'he has more than me, how can I get to his level'. Hopefully you can guess which is more positive. A flat tax is a perfectly moral tax to adopt, as if all are equal (again a touchstone of the left) surely they should be equal in tax as well.


Logged

PS: I am using my late mother's Facebook account due to the difficulty of changing identities on Facebook. She has yet to complain.
Judäischen Volksfront
exnaderite
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5489


Political Matrix
E: -3.29, S: -8.26

View Profile
« Reply #87 on: November 14, 2012, 07:43:07 pm »
Ignore

There were strikes and anti-austerity marches across Europe and especially in the southern countries. In many marches "We are all Europeans" was chanted. In some cases EU flags were burned. Clearly the EU is fulfilling its dream of uniting Europeans...against them.
Logged

Armand Duval
Zanas46
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1971
France


View Profile
« Reply #88 on: November 16, 2012, 11:14:30 am »
Ignore

Driving people in the hands of MLP because of this? lol, no. That's not at all the scheme into which MLP could earn voters, it's more likely bad for her, because this measure is seen like a rather balanced and constructive one by most of the classical political class (MEDEF approved of it!), and actually it's part of stuffs that participates to make social relationships more peaceful. It's actually a balanced one, and not something betraying the Socialistes ideas, those who don't like it had to support stuffs like 'Mélenchon'.
Actually, I would beg to differ. This is typically the type of political betrayal that will make Hollande's electors think : "well we elected him to fire Sarko, and basically he's doing more of the same on everything that matters economically". So it's typically the kind of things that feed the whole "UMPS tous pareils, tous pourris" FN rhetorics... And, frankly, how can you prove them wrong ?... Gay marriage ? People actually do not care that much about that, but they care about giving the company that fired their brother or their son several fukcing millions of € when they have nil, or even have more to pay on their own in tax.

You seem to be proud that Medef approved of that, and that most of the classical political class as well. Well here's the thing : "most of the classical political class" is right-wing, and most is disconnected from the public. Soooo yeah, they approve of it. How about the people ?

But since you speak "stuffs like 'Mélenchon'" as if you took a tissue to throw a stale fruit in the bin, I guess you won't be hearing what I say here...
Logged

"F**k you Lion, I'm the King !" Mr Bear

IN NATE WE TRUST

Long Live Bretzels !


That's not how the left works.  We make swords out of our enemy's iron thrones.

My French blog
Acting like I'm Morrissey w/o the wit
Leftbehind
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3181
United Kingdom


View Profile
« Reply #89 on: November 17, 2012, 08:30:53 am »
Ignore

To answer your first point, what exactly have the rich done wrong in order to merit losing 75% of their income, in order to simply give it to the poor, who may or may not be deserving people.
What exactly have rich people done to deserve multiples of what the average worker collects? The state would be a better judge of who and what is deserving than the bastardised market we have now, and can distribute the money accordingly (or use it for infrastructure and in doing so create jobs).

Your second point, correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think unemployment has passed 12% in the UK since the 1930's. A significant level of unemployment is something like 25-30% out of work. The current unemployment rate is 7.9% I think.
As has already been intimated, your definition of significant unemployment is just absurd but at least accurately reflects how low the ambitions your model sets itself.


People have had this belief for most of the period between the early 80's and 2008. This loss of belief that your children would have a better future was widespread in the 1970's, in fact so was the belief that western society was on the edge of collapse. Again your belief that people should be 'guaranteed a job if you look for one' is only one that can be achieved by the government taking control and micromanaging the economy.
There was a shake in the belief in response to the 70's oil crisis but neither the austerity nor the unemployment caused compare to todays conditions (and you had a strong labour movement and more belief in the political process to counteract that). No, today's outlook is far more bleak and rightly so.

The rest of your response seems to come from a bizarre belief that government intervention is a self-evident evil and as such it does to point out the record of the post-war settlement ("fantasy economics") includes interventionist policies with the implication it therefore can't be done. As someone who completely rejects that discredited belief I've nothing to respond to.
Logged

Antonio V
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 31213
France


Political Matrix
E: -6.45, S: -4.87

P P P

View Profile
« Reply #90 on: November 19, 2012, 08:43:47 pm »
Ignore

Implementing Jospin's proposals on institutional reform is part of what I consider as non-negotiable in order for Hollande's tenure to deserve any other mention than "epic fail". I hope he doesn't shy away from this as all his predecessors did.
Logged

Quote from: IRC
22:15   ComradeSibboleth   this is all extremely terrible and in all respects absolutely fycking dire.

It really is.



"A reformist is someone who realizes that, when you bang your head on a wall, it's the head that breaks rather than the wall."

Peppino, from the movie Baaria
Icehand Gino
Full Member
***
Posts: 121
France


View Profile
« Reply #91 on: November 19, 2012, 10:01:19 pm »
Ignore

Implementing Jospin's proposals on institutional reform is part of what I consider as non-negotiable in order for Hollande's tenure to deserve any other mention than "epic fail". I hope he doesn't shy away from this as all his predecessors did.

Strongly agree with this. I even think he should consider to do more than Jospin's proposals in order to show more leadership.

For example, Jospin's proposal on proportional representation is the election of 58 MPs on this basis. Hollande proposed the election of 100 MPs via PR during his campaign. I hope he will remember this.
Logged
Antonio V
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 31213
France


Political Matrix
E: -6.45, S: -4.87

P P P

View Profile
« Reply #92 on: November 20, 2012, 12:14:33 am »
Ignore

Implementing Jospin's proposals on institutional reform is part of what I consider as non-negotiable in order for Hollande's tenure to deserve any other mention than "epic fail". I hope he doesn't shy away from this as all his predecessors did.

Strongly agree with this. I even think he should consider to do more than Jospin's proposals in order to show more leadership.

For example, Jospin's proposal on proportional representation is the election of 58 MPs on this basis. Hollande proposed the election of 100 MPs via PR during his campaign. I hope he will remember this.

Welcome to the forum, BTW! Smiley

Un nouveau venu parmi les Français? Malgré mon avatar, je suis Français aussi (et Italien, mais c'est une longue histoire). Je suis à Sciences Po, et là j'étudie pour un an à San Francisco dans le cadre d'un échange. Wink
Logged

Quote from: IRC
22:15   ComradeSibboleth   this is all extremely terrible and in all respects absolutely fycking dire.

It really is.



"A reformist is someone who realizes that, when you bang your head on a wall, it's the head that breaks rather than the wall."

Peppino, from the movie Baaria
Icehand Gino
Full Member
***
Posts: 121
France


View Profile
« Reply #93 on: November 20, 2012, 12:36:40 am »
Ignore

Thanks Wink

Oui, je suis français (d'origine italienne, mais je n'en parle pas un mot).
Logged
PASOK Leader Hashemite
Hashemite
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 31485
South Africa


Political Matrix
E: -1.29, S: -7.30

P P P

View Profile WWW
« Reply #94 on: November 20, 2012, 08:02:47 am »
Ignore

As with every government, we'll probably get some bullsh**t institutional reform which won't fundamentally change anything and certainly won't be anything noticeably better than the current structure. Isn't their local government reform supposed to be a return to the status-quo?
Logged

Antonio V
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 31213
France


Political Matrix
E: -6.45, S: -4.87

P P P

View Profile
« Reply #95 on: November 20, 2012, 07:09:03 pm »
Ignore

Thanks Wink

Oui, je suis français (d'origine italienne, mais je n'en parle pas un mot).

C'est vrai? Alors ça c'est incroyable! Smiley Bienvenue en tout cas.
Logged

Quote from: IRC
22:15   ComradeSibboleth   this is all extremely terrible and in all respects absolutely fycking dire.

It really is.



"A reformist is someone who realizes that, when you bang your head on a wall, it's the head that breaks rather than the wall."

Peppino, from the movie Baaria
Insula Dei
belgiansocialist
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4233
Belgium


View Profile
« Reply #96 on: November 20, 2012, 08:42:58 pm »
Ignore

Thanks Wink

Oui, je suis français (d'origine italienne, mais je n'en parle pas un mot).

C'est vrai? Alors ça c'est incroyable! Smiley Bienvenue en tout cas.

Moi, je ne saurais que repeter plus ou moins literalement les mots de Antonio pour te souhaiter bienvenue, Gino. Alors, je t'epargnai cette repetition fatiguante,...
Logged

big bad fab
filliatre
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 13946
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: 1.42, S: 4.87

P

View Profile
« Reply #97 on: November 22, 2012, 05:12:56 am »
Ignore

Thanks Wink

Oui, je suis français (d'origine italienne, mais je n'en parle pas un mot).

C'est vrai? Alors ça c'est incroyable! Smiley Bienvenue en tout cas.

Bien construit tes deux identités, Antonio Grin
(it's a joke, of course)
Logged

Enjoy the French elections !
Enjoy polling analysis !
Enjoy my tracker !

http://sondages2012.wordpress.com/
Antonio V
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 31213
France


Political Matrix
E: -6.45, S: -4.87

P P P

View Profile
« Reply #98 on: November 22, 2012, 04:32:43 pm »
Ignore

BTW, my University Sciences Po is in an epic sh*tstorm right now. Apparently their finances were all over the place.
Logged

Quote from: IRC
22:15   ComradeSibboleth   this is all extremely terrible and in all respects absolutely fycking dire.

It really is.



"A reformist is someone who realizes that, when you bang your head on a wall, it's the head that breaks rather than the wall."

Peppino, from the movie Baaria
Benwah [why on Earth do I post something] Courseyay
tsionebreicruoc
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5944
France


View Profile
« Reply #99 on: November 22, 2012, 06:41:34 pm »
Ignore

Implementing Jospin's proposals on institutional reform is part of what I consider as non-negotiable in order for Hollande's tenure to deserve any other mention than "epic fail". I hope he doesn't shy away from this as all his predecessors did.

lol, continues to be quite balanced...

Those words can only be the words of someone who voted for Mélenchon. Tongue

Actually, Hollande hasn't been elected to implement a revolution. Any thing that could actually pass will be welcome, bitching around is quite easy, making politics is something else (all those people who chanted 'YES WE CAN!' might have figured it out since then...). And all what he does, from a classical political perspective, is so far quite good, no matter what one can think about the situation of our society and which actual change one can wishes, all what can go in the good direction is something good to be taken. By the way, it seems to me that the political level is not here to create change in a society, it's here to deal with an already existing reality, so, we deal with what our country is, we have the political class we 'deserve'...

Cumulation of mandates is also the institutional reform a lot of French are the most pushy about if you believe polls, so it would be the one which has the most chances to pass. And frankly, I agree, as a 1st minimum step of institutional reform, the only fact to no more have to deal with all those freaking annoying barons by forbidding the mandate accumulation would be......WOOHOO!!. I already love to see Rebsamen and Collomb annoyed faces and all those other ones who try to pitifully explain you how it is totally necessary to cumulate mandates...

As for the proportional part of the Assemblée, yeah, it's quite ridiculous, but once again, those who complain had to vote for Mélenchon. Tongue

Cumulation of mandates in France:







Sorry not to translate all, you gonna ask if you want precisions.

Owni did a quite good animation summing of the situation in France about that (as they often do for C Politique on France5 each Sunday):

http://datablog.owni.fr/2012/11/12/cdata-le-cumul-des-mandats/

And in this they brought the most astonishing stat to me, the comparison with other countries, 1st the fact that France is the 1st at cumulating mandates (not surprised), and overall, the fact that people with both a national and local mandate reaches 83% (I've been surprised to see Sweden as 2nd with 35%...).

They add that here an MP can have till 4 local mandates (mayor of a -3.500 habs city, MP, leading an 'intercommunality', and leading a département), less than 25% of our MPs have only one mandate, 42% of deputies are also mayors, 45/101 départements are also led by a MP.

They also speak about the fact that, thankfully, they can't cumulate money beyond the limit of 8.300€ (which already is a freaking limit! no matter how small it can look like compared to the insane ones of some companies/banks/other insane stuffs)...but...they can have the money that goes beyond this limit in order to hire some people, then they can create their little 'elective industries'...

Bloody France. The only fact to change that wouldn't be easy, so...



Vas-y Lionel! Shoote les Barons!



Vas-y Francky! C'est bon!

It would take a while before having deeper change in the society, and might as well also be a matter of generation, and the preceding generation wouldn't be easy to move from its place, and the next ones are too much in a foggy situation right now, when you see how it can happen on a forum of people interested in politics, how do you want it goes better elsewhere...? Grin

BTW, my University Sciences Po is in an epic sh*tstorm right now. Apparently their finances were all over the place.

Yeah, seems that his last boss wasn't that wonderful... Tongue
Logged

14/01/2011: Tunisia!!
11/02/2011: Egypt!
20/10/2011: Libya
02/09/2013: Abandon of Syria...
...and of, well, 'all of that'...

Money became totally unfair.
Money became totally senseless.
Let's make Money totally useless...

??/??/20??: EU UU!!

Maybe a little update:

Religion Tradition is people's opium...
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... 35 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines