France: the old order changeth

[CanuckMA]

Last government to actually balance the books and start repaying the debt in Canada was a liberal government, left of centre.

Outside the US, most elections are not won, they are lost. People don't so much vote a government in as they vote one out. Sarkozy's loss had as much to do with his failed policies as with his trying to win the far right votes from LePen by blaming much of France's ills on immigration. They did not vote for a socialist government, as much as they voted out a conservative one. Sarkizy could not do it, so Hollande is given the chance. if he can't deliver, he'll be replaced next time.

 

[Tez3]

The human cost of Conservative policies.

"His death has spurred massive demonstrations against Greece's Government, which is led by an unelected leader imposed upon the country by Merkel, Sarkozy and the EU."

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/a...esponsible-death-pensioner.html#ixzz1uJdjEM5d


Now Greece is facing having the Far Right in power, the last time this happened, there was torture, people disappeared and the country was a hell for many Greeks.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/adamcurtis/2011/11/the_ghost_of_the_colonels.html

 

[elder999]

The human cost of Conservative policies.

"His death has spurred massive demonstrations against Greece's Government, which is led by an unelected leader imposed upon the country by Merkel, Sarkozy and the EU."

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/a...esponsible-death-pensioner.html#ixzz1uJdjEM5d


Now Greece is facing having the Far Right in power, the last time this happened, there was torture, people disappeared and the country was a hell for many Greeks.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/adamcurtis/2011/11/the_ghost_of_the_colonels.html

But, Irene, you forget that fascists are leftists and socialists, and the Colonels obviously are leftist and fascist because they believed in a strong central government with mroe government control-and, of course, they killed and tortured and people disappeared, and only left wingers do that sort of thing..... :lol:

 

[billc]

No Tez, for me its about the people, always has been always will be. When the government sucks up all the money through massive taxes, massive spending, massive borrowing to maintain what they're spending, you see what happens to the people. They get crushed by the massive debt the government builds up buying the votes of the people, and pushing the day of reckoning a little farther down the road. As they borrow more and more that day of reckoning can't be pushed any farther and you get greece, spain and france. Dennis Prager has a saying which applies to your pensioner, "The bigger the government, the smaller the citizen." What is your solution Tez. More borrowing to fund these massive government programs? Where does it end, and how does it not create even more human tragedy.

Do you think that taxing millionaires at 75% is going to save france? Well, this is the thing, we get to see what will happen when you put the mistakes that put greece, spain and france where they are and put the mistakes into overdrive.

 

[billc]

Here is R.J. Rummel, Ph.D. in political science on the topic of socialists...

http://democraticpeace.wordpress.com/2009/05/23/hitler-was-a-socialist/

What is socialism? It is a politico-economic philosophy that believes government must direct all major economic decisions by command, and thus all the means of production for the greater good, however defined. There are three major divisions of socialism, all antagonistic to each other. One is democratic socialism, that places the emphasis on democratic means, but then government is a tool for improving welfare and equality. A second division is Marxist-Leninism, which based on a “scientific theory” of dialectical materialism, sees the necessity of a dictatorship (“of the proletariat&#8221 to create a classless society and universal equality. Then, there is the third division, or state socialism. This is a non-Marxist or anti-Marxist dictatorship that aims at near absolute economic control for the purpose of economic development and national power, all construed to benefit the people.
Mussolini’s fascism was a state socialism that was explicitly anti-Marx and aggressively nationalistic. Hitler’s National Socialism was state socialism at its worse. It not only shared the socialism of fascism, but was explicitly racist. In this it differs from the state socialism of Burma today, and that of some African and Arab dictatorships.
Two prevailing historical myths that the left has propagated successfully is that Hitler was a far right wing conservative and was democratically elected in 1933 (a blow at bourgeois democracy and conservatives). Actually, he was defeated twice in the national elections (he became chancellor in a smoke-filled-room appointment by those German politicians who thought they could control him — see “What? Hitler Was Not Elected?”) and as head of the National Socialist German Workers’ Party, he considered himself a socialist, and was one by the evidence of his writings and the his economic policies.
To be clear, National Socialism differs from Marxism in its nationalism, emphasis on folk history and culture, idolization of the leader, and its racism. But the Nazi and Marxist-Leninists shared a faith in government, an absolute ruler, totalitarian control over all significant economic and social matters for the good of the working man, concentration camps, and genocide/democide as an effective government policy (only in his last years did Stalin plan for his own Holocaust of the Jews).

and this little bit about socialists of the marx persuasion...

(only in his last years did Stalin plan for his own Holocaust of the Jews).

 

[billc]

And to help elder with the definition of a "rightist"...

http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=22626

So what are Rightists?
The prime focus in this paper has been on defining and explaining what Leftism is. It would nonetheless be remiss not to give also at least a skeletal outline of what Rightism is so I will now do that. If Leftism and Rightism are NOT mirror-images, as this paper asserts, some such account does appear necessary in order to complete the picture. I have, however, written one book and many previous papers for those who wish to study conservatism at greater length (See Ray, 1972b, 1973, 1974, 1979 & 1981).
Military Dictators?
In the late 20th century, it was a common rhetorical ploy of the more "revolutionary" Left in the "Western" world simply to ignore democracy as an alternative to Communism. Instead they would excuse the brutalities of Communism by pointing to the brutalities of the then numerous military dictatorships of Southern Europe and Latin America and pretend that such regimes were the only alternative to Communism. These regimes were led by generals who might in various ways be seen as conservative (though Peron was clearly Leftist) so do they tell us anything about conservatism?
Historically, most of the world has been ruled by military men and their successors (Sargon II of Assyria, Alexander of Macedon, Caesar, Augustus, Constantine, Charlemagne, Frederick II of Prussia etc.) so it seems unlikely but perhaps the main point to note here is that the Hispanic dictatorships of the 20th century were very often created as a response to a perceived threat of a Communist takeover. This is particularly clear in the case of Spain, Chile and Argentina. They were an attempt to fight fire with fire. In Argentina of the 60s and 70s, for instance, Leftist "urban guerillas" were very active — blowing up anyone they disapproved of. The nice, mild, moderate Anglo-Saxon response to such depredations would have been to endure the deaths and disruptions concerned and use police methods to trace the perpetrators and bring them to trial. Much of the world is more fiery than that, however, and the Argentine generals certainly were. They became impatient with the slow-grinding wheels of democracy and its apparent impotence in the face of the Leftist revolutionaries. They therefore seized power and instituted a reign of terror against the Leftist revolutionaries that was as bloody, arbitrary and indiscriminate as what the Leftists had inflicted. In a word, they used military methods to deal with the Leftist attackers. So the nature of these regimes was only incidentally conservative. What they were was essentially military. We have to range further than the Hispanic generals, therefore, if we are to find out what is quintessentially conservative.
It might be noted, however, that, centuries earlier, the parliamentary leaders of England — led by Fairfax, Cromwell etc. — did something similar to the Hispanic generals of the 20th century. Faced by an attempt on the part of the Stuart tyrant to abrogate their traditional rights, powers and liberties, they resorted to military means to overthrow the threat. There is no reason to argue that democracy cannot or must not use military means to defend itself or that Leftists or anyone else must be granted exclusive rights to the use of force and violence.

He also goes on to describes the American war of independence as a "rightist" war...

 

[Tez3]

No Tez, for me its about the people, always has been always will be. When the government sucks up all the money through massive taxes, massive spending, massive borrowing to maintain what they're spending, you see what happens to the people. They get crushed by the massive debt the government builds up buying the votes of the people, and pushing the day of reckoning a little farther down the road. As they borrow more and more that day of reckoning can't be pushed any farther and you get greece, spain and france. Dennis Prager has a saying which applies to your pensioner, "The bigger the government, the smaller the citizen." What is your solution Tez. More borrowing to fund these massive government programs? Where does it end, and how does it not create even more human tragedy.

Do you think that taxing millionaires at 75% is going to save france? Well, this is the thing, we get to see what will happen when you put the mistakes that put greece, spain and france where they are and put the mistakes into overdrive.

No Bili, with you it is all about the money, look at this post, it's money, money, money. I'm not a socialist btw so my answer isn't their way, I'm not a conservative either, I'm a good old fashioned British Liberal (not a Lib Dem either) Not something you know about as your liberals are something else. There's a big difference between European politics and American politics, different people, different needs and aspirations, so stop trying to figure European politics as if they were American.


You seem to assume all the problems of the recession were caused by socialists, however the majority of governments including Sweden, Spain, Germany and France are conservative. France of course will soon be getting a new government, as Canuck says if the conservative policies were working they wouldn't be voted out.

 

[billc]

Well, the pensioner shot himself stating he didn't want to leave his debts to his children. I think if he had some money and didn't have the debt, he may not have taken his own life. People need to eat, have clothing and shelter, that seems to take some form of currency since we are, at least for now, not a barter society. Do you work for free Tez? Does the market where you shop just give you your items for free? Do you live in your home for free? Seems to me it takes money.

Here is a saying I have coined..."Money doesn't buy happiness....but it sure takes care of the incidentals..."

 

[billc]

And more on what makes the "Right"...please excuse the length...

German Origins
What modern-day Rightists of the English-speaking world are, then, traces right back to the German invaders who overran Britannia around 1500 years ago and made it into England. They brought with them a very decentralized, largely tribal system of government that was very different from the Oriental despotisms that had ruled the civilized world for most of human history up to that time. And they liked their decentralized system very much. So much so that the system just kept on keeping on in England, century after century, despite many vicissitudes. Only the 20th century really shook it.
Where the English get their traditional dislike of unrestrained central power is not the main point or even an essential point of the present account. Nonetheless, tracing that dislike to the ultimately German descent of most of the English population might seem colossally perverse in view of Germany's recent experience. Was not Hitler a German and was he not almost the ultimate despot and centralizer of power in his own hands? One could quibble here by saying that Hitler was NOT a German (he was an Austrian) and the Israeli historian Unger (1965) has pointed out that Hitler was much less of a despot than Stalin was but neither of those points is really saying much in the present context.
The important thing here again is to see things with an historian's eye and realize that recent times are atypical. Right up until Bismarck's ascendancy in the late 19th century, Germany was remarkable for its degree of decentralization. What we now know as Germany was once always comprised of hundreds of independent States (kingdoms, principalities, Hanseatic cities etc.) of all shapes and sizes: States that were in fact so much in competition with one another in various ways that they were not infrequently at war with one-another.
And it was of course only the fractionated and competing centres of power existing in mediaeval Germany that enabled the successful emergence there of the most transforming and anti-authority event of the last 1000 years: The Protestant Reformation. Despite the almost immediate and certainly widespread popularity of his new teachings among Germans, Luther ran great risks and would almost certainly have been burnt at the stake like Savonarola, Hus and his other predecessors in religious rebellion had it not been for his (and our) good fortune that he was a Saxon. His Prince, Frederick III ("The Wise") of Saxony gave him constant protection. As one of the Electors of the Holy Roman Empire, Frederick was strong enough and independent enough to protect Luther from Pope, from Emperor and from other German potentates.
So only after Bismarck engineered the defeat of the French at Sedan in 1870 did most of Germany become unified — with the Germans of the Austrian lands remaining independent even then. And to this day Germany has a Federal system very similar to that of their largely Germanic brethren in the United States, Canada and Australia — a system of State governments which markedly limits central (Federal) government power. So the German origins of the English do make their historic dislike of concentrated power at the Centre just one part of a larger picture.
In 1066, William of Normandy disrupted the traditional decentralized and competitive power structure of England to some degree but by the time of King John and Magna Carta it was back with a vengeance. Even in the reign of that great Tudor despot, Henry VIII, there were still in England great and powerful regional Lords and many less powerful but numerous local notables representing local interests that the King had to take great care with. Even Tudor central government power was highly contingent, far from absolute and much dependant on the popularity of the ruler among ordinary English people. And when the Stuarts, with their doctrine of "the divine right of Kings", ignored all that and tried to turn the English monarchy into something more like a centralized Oriental despotism, off came the head of the Stuart King.
A Conservative Revolution
And the parliamentarians who were responsible for beheading King Charles I in 1649 were perfectly articulate about why. They felt that Charles had attempted to destroy the ancient English governmental system or "constitution" and that he had tried to take away important rights and individual liberties that the English had always enjoyed — liberty from the arbitrary power of Kings, a right to representation in important decisions and a system of counterbalanced and competing powers rather than an all-powerful central government. It is to them that we can look for the first systematic statements of conservative ideals — ideals that persevere to this day. And they were both conservatives (wishing to conserve traditional rights and arrangements) and revolutionaries!
So right back in the 17th century we had the apparent paradox of "conservatives" (the parliamentary leaders — later to be referred to as "Whigs") being prepared to undertake most radical change (deposing monarchy) in order to restore treasured traditional rights and liberties and to rein in overweening governmental power. So Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan were not at all breakaways from the conservatism of the past. They had very early and even more determined predecessors. Nobody who knew history should have been surprised by the Reagan/Thatcher "revolution". And it was in deliberate tribute to the parliamentarians of Cromwell's day and their immediate successors that two of the most influential conservative theorists prior to Reagan and Thatcher both described themselves as "Old Whigs" — Burke (1790) and Hayek (1944). Hayek described Whig ideals as "the only set of ideals that has consistently opposed all arbitrary power" (Hayek, 1960)

.

 

[Sukerkin]

Still mostly reading your usual suspects then. Bill? Not expanded your list much?

As a matter of interest, why is it, exactly, that you bother to repeatedly post such misleading things up in any and all threads, whether they are really relevant or not? I've had you on ignore for months, give you the benefit of the doubt, let you back in and the tune is still the same.

Honestly, without ill-feeling, your sources are not credible; Rummel's qualifications may be real but his perspective is not. That is largely the end of the story. Because I strive to remain polite in the main, I won't debate it with you any further because I think you are not interested in learning anything under a light of objective enquiry. It is my belief that you prefer, rather, to cleave to shamelessly partisan pundits because it makes the world a simpler place. It is exactly the same as a British person claiming they have any insight into socio-economic truth when all they read is the Sun (which doesn't have a Page 3 Girl any more, thus removing it's only reason to exist).

But for all other readers who may be new to this topic, I contend that BillC is wrong (possibly wilfully but I hesitate to state that as a fact for I am not him). There are little grains here and there that are sufficiently true to leaven the whole enough for the unwary but almost everything that Mr. Cihak links to on politics, and most especially economics, does not show more than a passing acquaintance with reality.

:lol: See what you've done now, Bill? You forced me to use a Cambridge Comma ... I am ashamed

 

[Tez3]

Well, the pensioner shot himself stating he didn't want to leave his debts to his children. I think if he had some money and didn't have the debt, he may not have taken his own life. People need to eat, have clothing and shelter, that seems to take some form of currency since we are, at least for now, not a barter society. Do you work for free Tez? Does the market where you shop just give you your items for free? Do you live in your home for free? Seems to me it takes money.

Here is a saying I have coined..."Money doesn't buy happiness....but it sure takes care of the incidentals..."

That pensioner lived through the Colonel's reign of terror, perhaps too he didn't want to live through another one. The fact Greece doesn't have money is due to the recession, the European Parliament run by the Conservatives placed an unelected government in to cut just about everything they could in Greece. Now tell me again who caused the recession? Not the Socialist governments because there's hardly any in Europe and none in any position to influence economic affairs.
I think you should learn about Eurpoean history and it's politics before making sweeping statements about left and right.

 

[billc]

I see Tez, you are hung up on the physical aspect of money, let me tell you where I come from...

When I was in the national guard, a corporal in my platoon was a chicago police officer. He said one of the things that really p****d him off was thieves. He said you have a guy who breaks his back working a 50 hour week, gets home, gets a beer and sits down to watch a show on his television only to find some A**h*** had stolen it. That really set him off thinking about that. It also helped me understand the nature of money.

Do you know why "Thou shalt not steal is a ten commandment?" I'll get to that.


Time in your life passes and never comes back. Each second is experienced and that is it, it is gone and you never, ever get it back. In life you have certain choices to make. Do you labor for one hour or do you do something you would like to do instead. Once you choose and use that hour it is never coming back. Let's say you choose to labor for ten hours at 10 dollars an hour to get 100 dollars to buy a toy for your kids. That choice can't be undone, those hours are gone. Lets say someone steals that toy. What have they really done? They just stole 10 hours of your life you will never get back. That is why stealing is covered in the ten commandments. The thief is literally stealing hours of your life. Money that you earn through work represents seconds, minutes and hours of life. You spend that life in order to make choices for you and your family. You use it for food, clothing and shelter but also for toys and vacations. When a politician takes more money from you than is legitimate or fair, he is taking time of your life, and he is also depriving you of freedom and choice. Money allows you to make choices, the more you have the more choices you have, the less you have the fewer choices you have. You pay for those choices with, I guess you could say, parts of your life. The more money the politician takes from a person, the less choices they are allowed to make for themselves. That is why allowing people to keep their money, earned through work, which is essentially parts of your life you will never get back, is so important. Freedom and choices because of money are paid for in "life," the more the government has, the less you have. Keep in mind, when they waste that money, they are wasting your life, which you will never get back.

Or something like that.

 

[billc]

Sooo...the greek government wasn't in debt? They didn't have a large government that spent too much? Regardless of who was in charge. All of a sudden they had no money, just like that? Their government pensions and benefits had nothing to do with their predicament. Cook county illinois here in the U.S. has an unfunded penison liability of about 120 billion dollars. If we have a recession, is it the recession or the out of control government debt and obligations that put us in trouble?

 

[WC_lun]

Billi, the problems in Greece are far more convuluted than you make it seem. For one thing, many of the bank in the US helped make the debt problem in Greece a lot worse. That's capitalism though, so no big deal, huh? Greece was having some problems with debt. US bank loaned Greece a ton of money then proceeded to sell them credit swaps. Basically Greece was playing the market, paying a lot of fees to those US banks, in order to keep the books looking as if Greece was doing well and flush. Of course, when the market went to hell and markers were called in, Greece could not hide thier cooking the books, nor the involvement of US banks in doing so. In fact, certain bank officials and Greece officials have been charged with wrong doing. So it is not a question so much of political leanings, but of greed and the desire for power. Given the right's desire to reduce regulations and stripping the power behind current laws regarding bank behaviour, this will not be a singular incident.

 

[CanuckMA]

Let's see. Big government, tons of regulations, decades of Liberalgovernment left Canada with a surplus and starting to pay down the debt. Our banking regulations were responsible for letting us weather the recession. The subsequent Conservative governemnt has eaten away at all thos fiscal gains.

Bill, you may wish to not speak on that which you know not.

 

[billc]

Hmmm...perhaps this conservative idea helped...I'll let more knowledgable people explain it...

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/01/canada_slashes_corporate_tax_r.html

Canada slashes corporate tax rate to 16.5%

But The Canadians have figured out something that eludes American progressives: taxing corporations is a silly way to raise revenue for the state, as it hinders job creation,
Phred Dvorak writes in the Wall Street Journal:

Canada's government says the cuts and other business-attracting measures should bring more investment to the country. Economists say it's tough to figure out what the actual effects of such moves are, though some companies say Canada's relatively low taxes and stable

financial​

and regulatory environment swayed their decisions to move operations and capital north.


​

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/12/canada_soars.html

In reality, Canada has genuinely gone its own way, getting itself out from the shadow of the US economic picture at just the right time. The government of conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper has embraced free markets, not just one or two things, but a whole banquet of all the things that make economies grow - smaller government, free [COLOR=#009900 !important]trade[/COLOR], one tax cut after another, and energy development and security. Net result? Same as what Chile got when it tried the same kinds of reforms - a booming economy.
IBD wonders what the heck the U.S. would look like if it just followed the tax-cutting, government slashing model that has made even the dullest nation turn into the Canadian puma state. What really would it look like?

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/12/canada_soars.html#ixzz1uKuEHWlt

From a link in the above article, the investors business daily...

http://news.investors.com/article/596263/201112291827/tax-cuts-give-canada-economy-a-boost.htm

Hmmmm...

As 2011 ends, Canada has announced yet another tax cut — and will soar even more.The Obama administration and its economic czars have flailed about for years, baffled about how to get the U.S. economy growing.In reality, the president need look no further than our neighbor, Canada, whose solid growth is the product of tax cuts, fiscal discipline, free trade, and energy development. That's made Canada a roaring puma nation, while its supposedly more powerful southern neighbor stands on the outside looking in.On Thursday, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper announced that he will slash corporate taxes again on Jan. 1 in the final stage of his Economic Action Plan, dropping the federal business tax burden to just 15%.Along with fresh tax cuts in provinces such as Alberta, total taxes for businesses in Canada will drop to 25%, one of the lowest in the G7, and below the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development average."Creating jobs and growth is our top priority," said Minister Jim Flaherty. "Through our government low-tax plan ... we are continuing to send the message that Canada is open for business and the best place to invest."​

Harper also has made signing free trade treaties his priority. Canada now has 11 free trade pacts in force, and 14 under active negotiation — including pacts with the European Union and India, among others.​

"We believe in free trade in Canada, we're a free-trading nation. That's the source of our strength, our quality of life, our economic strength," Flaherty said last month.Lastly, Canada has pursued its competitive advantage — oil. And it did so not through top-down "industrial policy," but by getting government out of the way.Harper has enacted market-friendly regulations to accomplish big things like the Keystone Pipeline — and urged President Obama to move forward on it or else Canada would sell its oil to China.These policies have been well-known since the Reagan era. But in a country that's been institutionally socialist since the 1950s, Harper's moves represent a dramatic affirmation for free market economics.​

For Canada, they've had big benefits.Canada's incomes are rising, its unemployment is two percentage points below the U.S. rate, its currency is strengthening and it boasts Triple-A or equivalent sovereign ratings across the board from the five top international ratings agencies, lowering its cost of credit.​

You also didn't have Barney Frank and Chris Dodd wrecking your mortgage industry...

You don't have obama trying to destroy your oil, coal, natural gas and other important industries.

 

[WC_lun]

You also didn't have Barney Frank and Chris Dodd wrecking your mortgage industry...

You don't have obama trying to destroy your oil, coal, natural gas and other important industries.

...and if this horse manure is the best you can come up with to oppose Obama a second term, you make it easy to vote for him.

 

[Tez3]

I see Tez, you are hung up on the physical aspect of money, let me tell you where I come from...

The physical aspect of money? what on earth does that means?

When I was in the national guard, a corporal in my platoon was a chicago police officer. He said one of the things that really p****d him off was thieves. He said you have a guy who breaks his back working a 50 hour week, gets home, gets a beer and sits down to watch a show on his television only to find some A**h*** had stolen it. That really set him off thinking about that. It also helped me understand the nature of money.

Do you know why "Thou shalt not steal is a ten commandment?" I'll get to that.

I imagine that for various reasons I do actually know about the Commandments? A ten commandment, as opposed to only scoring a nine for instance, it's not the Olympics where a perfect ten is strived for.


Time in your life passes and never comes back. Each second is experienced and that is it, it is gone and you never, ever get it back. In life you have certain choices to make. Do you labor for one hour or do you do something you would like to do instead. Once you choose and use that hour it is never coming back. Let's say you choose to labor for ten hours at 10 dollars an hour to get 100 dollars to buy a toy for your kids. That choice can't be undone, those hours are gone. Lets say someone steals that toy. What have they really done? They just stole 10 hours of your life you will never get back. That is why stealing is covered in the ten commandments. The thief is literally stealing hours of your life. Money that you earn through work represents seconds, minutes and hours of life. You spend that life in order to make choices for you and your family. You use it for food, clothing and shelter but also for toys and vacations. When a politician takes more money from you than is legitimate or fair, he is taking time of your life, and he is also depriving you of freedom and choice. Money allows you to make choices, the more you have the more choices you have, the less you have the fewer choices you have. You pay for those choices with, I guess you could say, parts of your life. The more money the politician takes from a person, the less choices they are allowed to make for themselves. That is why allowing people to keep their money, earned through work, which is essentially parts of your life you will never get back, is so important. Freedom and choices because of money are paid for in "life," the more the government has, the less you have. Keep in mind, when they waste that money, they are wasting your life, which you will never get back.

I'm glad you said politician, it's about time you realised that politicians as a breed aren't to be trusted, their very nature of wanting to be politicians makes them suspect in the first place. To paraphrase, put not your trust in politicians. Other than that your homily is somewhat patronising.

Or something like that.

Research, homework, due diligence, words that come to mind when reading your posts on European politics...I include the UK here for ease of understanding. You don't understand Greeces' problems nor do you understand it's history which explains why they vote they way they vote. They went through a horrendous time, where they may have had money to spend but they lived in fear of the knock on the door by the military police. they feared being tortured because they liked the Beatles or were men with long hair, yes really. They feared being sent to the concentration camp at Oropos as the composer Mikis Theodorakis was ( he wrote the music for Zorba and Serpico among other things).


America thank goodness hasn't known the turbulant history of Europe, it's settlers, I think and their descendants have managed for the large part to learn the lessons from the old countries and steer a reasonably peaceful path, hiccups yes but on the whole America has done far better than it's 'ancestors' in Europe where old wounds lie open still. For you to misunderstand either wilfully or by lack of knowledge what actually goes on here and to keep quoting only those sources that agree with you is a shame in many ways. It stifles any meaningful conversation when you insist you are the only one who is correct especially when you argue about something you clearly don't understand.

 

[CanuckMA]

Hmmm...perhaps this conservative idea helped...I'll let more knowledgable people explain it...

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/01/canada_slashes_corporate_tax_r.html





http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/12/canada_soars.html



Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/12/canada_soars.html#ixzz1uKuEHWlt

From a link in the above article, the investors business daily...

http://news.investors.com/article/596263/201112291827/tax-cuts-give-canada-economy-a-boost.htm

Hmmmm...





You also didn't have Barney Frank and Chris Dodd wrecking your mortgage industry...

You don't have obama trying to destroy your oil, coal, natural gas and other important industries.

So you did not read, or simply don't want to comprehend, what I wrote.

Under the Liberal stewardship, we eliminated the deficit, brought in a surplus, started to pay down the debt. The 'big government' regulatins is what stopped our banks from doing the same stupid things the US did. We went through the recession largely unscathed. Then a Conservative government was elected and started their ideas of cutting taxes, and all. We are now running a deficit again. Programs and services are being cut.

 

[billc]

Perhaps the French and the Greeks, and the Spanish and California and my home state of Illinois should watch this video...

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Govern...approach-deficit-reduction-historically-fails

Reason's Nick Gillespie talks Europe and austerity, which can offer valuable lessons for Americans as we engage in the economic debate sure to be had as part of the 2012 election. Significant research demonstrates that so-called austerity measures that worked through the years are ones that focused on government spending cuts, without leaning on tax increases to make up the balance between that and GDP.
Packages of spending cuts often lead to economic growth, whereas those including significant tax increases do not, which parts of Europe are learning the hard way today. Government spending is also one of the elements that proves less likely to create economic expansion.
Is Germany doing better than America? It's hard to argue with a 6.2% unemployment rate brought about through serious structural reform, including labor markets. Also, by reducing incentives to stay unemployed and reducing the size of, and compensation for, the government workforce, Germany seems to be faring far better than much of Europe--which responded to economic downturns with higher taxes.