Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 22

Thread: France voted for sacrifice

  1. #1
    All League
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    East of the Jordan, West of the Rock of Gibraltar
    Posts
    4,764
    Post Thanks / Like

    France voted for sacrifice

    By voting for Sarkozy they basically said they want to work more than 35 hours per week and that their social welfare state should be reduced.

    When was the last national election that the people of the USA voted for less?

  2. #2
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Philly
    Posts
    38,782
    Post Thanks / Like
    when the America people voted for Dumbya twice we said "hey who needs good leadership? this is the guy i would like to drink a beer with"

  3. #3
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Buster]By voting for Sarkozy they basically said they want to work more than 35 hours per week and that their social welfare state should be reduced.

    When was the last national election that the people of the USA voted for less?[/QUOTE]

    Uh, they didn't vote for less, dude. They voted the way they did because the current system is failing. Their welfare state was unsustainable and their economic growth stagnant and their living standards decreasing, by some standards, dueto many factors, of which a large one is hyper-regulation. They voted for improvements, not "less." They want less regulations in their markets, because they want less unemployment and more economic growth.

  4. #4
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    1,072
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=bitonti]when the America people voted for Dumbya twice we said "hey who needs good leadership? this is the guy i would like to drink a beer with"[/QUOTE]


    The Clinton's don't drink beer.

  5. #5
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    1,171
    Post Thanks / Like

    Ironic--

    France voted the socialists out and the lib/socialists here kept telling us how good things are in Europe! :rofl:

  6. #6
    All Pro
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Huntersville, NC
    Posts
    6,230
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=bitonti]when the America people voted for Dumbya twice we said "hey who needs good leadership? this is the guy i would like to drink a beer with"[/QUOTE]

    You go ahead and vote for Hilary as you can see she'd be a great leader! :rolleyes:

  7. #7
    All Pro
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Huntersville, NC
    Posts
    6,230
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=jets5ever]Uh, they didn't vote for less, dude. They voted the way they did because the current system is failing. Their welfare state was unsustainable and their economic growth stagnant and their living standards decreasing, by some standards, dueto many factors, of which a large one is hyper-regulation. They voted for improvements, not "less." They want less regulations in their markets, because they want less unemployment and more economic growth.[/QUOTE]
    It also shows that maybe people around the world don't hate us as much as the "hard news" media would have you believe. This guy ran on a ticket of better relations with us.

  8. #8
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,407
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Buster]By voting for Sarkozy they basically said they want to work more than 35 hours per week and that their social welfare state should be reduced.

    When was the last national election that the people of the USA voted for less?[/QUOTE]

    less as in less government interference and less government dependency???

  9. #9
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,407
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=JetinHuntersville]It also shows that maybe people around the world don't hate us as much as the "hard news" media would have you believe. This guy ran on a ticket of better relations with us.[/QUOTE]


    and the guy who lost ran on a ticket of constantly comparing Sarkozy to George Bush....how ironic....

  10. #10
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    15,550
    Post Thanks / Like
    How is France's system failing and unsustainable?

  11. #11
    All League
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    East of the Jordan, West of the Rock of Gibraltar
    Posts
    4,764
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=jets5ever]Uh, they didn't vote for less, dude. They voted the way they did because the current system is failing. Their welfare state was unsustainable and their economic growth stagnant and their living standards decreasing, by some standards, dueto many factors, of which a large one is hyper-regulation. They voted for improvements, not "less." They want less regulations in their markets, because they want less unemployment and more economic growth.[/QUOTE]


    The French people who voted for Sarkozy HOPE that his proposed changes will improve things.
    But they KNOW that his proposed changes WILL definitely mean a longer work week (currently at 35 hours) and a reduction of the social welfare (retirement benefits at 55 years of age) that are provided through the state.

    Therefore my point is they without doubt voted for 'less', in hopes of a better future.


    As for France’s economy failing; they are part of the G7 and have the lowest poverty rate among that group of wealthy nations. What Sarkozy and his compatriots are concerned about is the 10% unemployment rate in France. 10% unemployment is bad but it does not equal 'failing economy'.

  12. #12
    All League
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    East of the Jordan, West of the Rock of Gibraltar
    Posts
    4,764
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=JetinHuntersville]It also shows that maybe people around the world don't hate us as much as the "hard news" media would have you believe. This guy ran on a ticket of better relations with us.[/QUOTE]




    Addressing his “American friends,” Mr. Sarkozy said, “I want to tell them that France will always be by their side when they need her, but that friendship is also accepting the fact that friends can think differently.”

    [URL=http://]http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/08/world/europe/08france.html[/URL]

  13. #13
    All League
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    4,850
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=bitonti]when the America people voted for Dumbya twice we said "hey who needs good leadership? this is the guy i would like to drink a beer with"[/QUOTE]

    The only Bumbya's are the ones who think the Democrats will fix anything! They flat out suck! If you want higher taxes and more welfare vote Democratic!

  14. #14
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=BrooklynBound]How is France's system failing and unsustainable?[/QUOTE]
    They have a gigantic unfunded liability and aren't haveing enough kids to pay for it via their labor and don't have the economic growth to pay for it either. They have a large economy, sure, and that helps them. However, their hyper-regulations and high taxes are choking growth and raising unemployment. They rely heavily on immigration to help provide them labor but most of these immigrants are unassimilated muslims who ARE having children, which is causing cultural problems, several of which are related to economics and several of which are not. They won't collapse entirely, but I should have stated that [I]as currently constituted[/I], their system is failing and unsustainable in large part to demographic concerns of an again population, a low birthrate and stagnant economic growth. They are not going to be able to give everybody what they've promised them unless they free up their economy and reduce the size of their government. It's the same stuff we face, only theirs is more immediate and (imo) dire. They aren't going to be a third world country any time soon, but they aren't even close to what they once were and they know it and unless they take drastic steps to free up their economy, this slide will continue.

    That's a lame summary, do you want data to?

  15. #15
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Buster]The French people who voted for Sarkozy HOPE that his proposed changes will improve things.
    But they KNOW that his proposed changes WILL definitely mean a longer work week (currently at 35 hours) and a reduction of the social welfare (retirement benefits at 55 years of age) that are provided through the state.

    Therefore my point is they without doubt voted for 'less', in hopes of a better future.


    As for France’s economy failing; they are part of the G7 and have the lowest poverty rate among that group of wealthy nations. What Sarkozy and his compatriots are concerned about is the 10% unemployment rate in France. 10% unemployment is bad but it does not equal 'failing economy'.[/QUOTE]


    You misunderstand - why would they vote for Sarko if things were going well? They KNOW things are not going well. They KNOW that these welfare committments cannot be met unless change happens. They KNOW that over-regulation is choking economic growth. They KNOW that "more work" also means "more income." You are only looking at one side of the ledger.

    Poverty measurement is a weird thing. Poverty is a relative term and is a complex thing to define and measure. Poor people in the US live better than poor people in France and even better than some people who are not considered poor in France. Poor people in the US today live better than upper-middle class people did only a few generations ago. Poverty rates in the US do not account for non-wage benefits and government assistance and so the amount is overstated. Crucially, there is more mobility in the US and the overwhelming majority of poor people in the US do not remain poor over the long term. Lastly, the US is a gigantic place with many different costs of living, which is not really accounted for well (IMO) in national poverty rates. Relative poverty is not the same as absolute poverty and the US has largely solved absolute poverty issues, as many countries have. Sure, there are many very, very poor people in this country...just not that many as a percentage and most of these people pay no taxes and get assistance from Uncle Sam, if they are capable of recieving it and not mentally unfit to figure out all of that or without a gaurdian who can help them, etc. I have no objection to helping those who need it. My basic point is that relative poverty is not the same as absolute.

  16. #16
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    6,159
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Buster]Therefore my point is they without doubt voted for 'less', in hopes of a better future.[/QUOTE]
    Your take is that the French electorate said in effect: [I]"Okay, this guy offers less than this gal. But since it will mean a better future, we'll take. Sadly, we'll have to admit to our liberal American friends that we knowingly opted for the lesser candidate."[/I]

    Congrats. Your thoughts are simultaneously interesting and retarded, and that's no small feat.

  17. #17
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    13,179
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Buster]By voting for Sarkozy they basically said they want to work more than 35 hours per week and that their social welfare state should be reduced.

    When was the last national election that the people of the USA voted for less?[/QUOTE]


    He also promised lower taxes so I guess they did vote for less.

  18. #18
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    468
    Post Thanks / Like
    What causes poverty? Is it scarcity?

    Comparing poor in developed nations to those in the developing nations is a stretch in some sense. Our poor in the have access to public programs that provide food, bed and bath, and so on. If they're sick, they can go to the ER without being turned down (at least to my knowledge). It seems to me that our poor can get their basic necessities in many cases (except some of those in the more rural areas).

    However, the poverty in Sudan, Ethiopia, Cambodia, etc. seem to be more about scarcity. These people lack the necessities. Little to no food (famines), they're sick (epidemics) with no care, and they have no infrastructure (social, political, and/or economic).

    This is something I was trying to wrap my head around a few weeks ago and then just stopped and got busy. Developed countries have a surplus and we still have a poverty problem. Developing countries don't have a surplus and have a massive poverty problem. Am I starting off on the wrong footing here trying to conceptualize the problem?

    edit - eh... I should think these things out before I post them. My thought was that scarcity was the mechanism driving 3rd world poverty and not that of the developed world because developed nations have surplus. Sorry folks...
    Last edited by finlee17; 05-09-2007 at 02:47 PM.

  19. #19
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    15,550
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=jets5ever]They have a gigantic unfunded liability and aren't haveing enough kids to pay for it via their labor and don't have the economic growth to pay for it either. They have a large economy, sure, and that helps them. However, their hyper-regulations and high taxes are choking growth and raising unemployment. They rely heavily on immigration to help provide them labor but most of these immigrants are unassimilated muslims who ARE having children, which is causing cultural problems, several of which are related to economics and several of which are not. They won't collapse entirely, but I should have stated that [I]as currently constituted[/I], their system is failing and unsustainable in large part to demographic concerns of an again population, a low birthrate and stagnant economic growth. They are not going to be able to give everybody what they've promised them unless they free up their economy and reduce the size of their government. It's the same stuff we face, only theirs is more immediate and (imo) dire. They aren't going to be a third world country any time soon, but they aren't even close to what they once were and they know it and unless they take drastic steps to free up their economy, this slide will continue.

    That's a lame summary, do you want data to?[/QUOTE]And this analysis comes from what? I was just there in the beginning of the year for almost a month and this is very far from the impression I got. There was very little complaining about their government and none about their "system". There is a problem with immigration but this isn't isolated to "unassimilated Muslims", and in fact the group most recently being targetted against is Eastern Europeans, and the immigration concerns is attributed more to the existence of the EU and spreads beyond the borders of France.

    Furthermore, I just don't see the problems in France's economy you describe. Rather, to the extent you describe.

    Real problems in the French economy include rising unemployment and an increasing deficet. No question that France has problems in their economy that deserve close attention. Maybe more free market control is necessary, I do not have the economic expertise to make any pronouncements on the matter.

    At the same time, it has an incredibly low percentage of the population under the poverty line (6.5%, compare to 11.4% in the United States), and it's Gini Coeffecient (measuring inequality) has increased at much lower rate than other nations in the wake of globalization.

    My point isn't that France needs some de-regulation, I simply do not have enough information to make any decisions on that issue. Rather, my point is that I do not think the situation in France is as dire as you make it out to be. Especially since there is a lot to envy about the French economy.

    That doesn't mean we should adopt it wholesale, but rather that we ought to be open to what we can learn from France in all sectors of life. Just like any country. The disdain for France that has become prevalent (or more pronounced) since 9/11 is disheartening and a perversion of patriotism.

  20. #20
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    13,179
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE]=BrooklynBound]

    At the same time, it has an incredibly low percentage of the population under the poverty line (6.5%, compare to 11.4% in the United States), and it's Gini Coeffecient (measuring inequality) has increased at much lower rate than other nations in the wake of globalization.[/QUOTE]

    Should a nations economy be based on how well the bottom of society is doing vs the top or how well the economy as a whole is doing?

    What is evident about France is while they may have a better balanced economy in terms of winners and losers, the public senses something is wrong. What I suspect is wrong is when you have double digit unemployment and a work force that is working under 35 hours a week, you either have an incredibly efficient work force that can generate enough wealth to carry society and grow with less than 90% of the workers working and working not very hard, or you have an economy that's on the brink? I think the vote tells you the public understands things aren't going so well and they are scared they are about to fall behind.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us