Lazy French don't want to work

• gut

  In response to budget crises, France has raised the retirement age from 60 to 62. Millions protest. Ain't socialism grand?
  
  http://www.care2.com/causes/human-rights/blog/france-disrupted-by-protests-against-raising-retirement-age-to-62/
• believer

  

  In order to get "full" Social Security benefits I have to work until I'm 65 and a half.....and that's been in place for years.
  
  The French only demonstrate an entitlement mentality caused by decades of expecting its socialist government to take care of all their needs at the expense of personal responsibility and the freedoms and liberties that accompany it.
  
  The French are rioting and the Brits are tightening their socialist belts. Meanwhile the twits in DC are clamoring for European-style socialism in America.
  
  Hopefully we can sloooooooooooooowwwwwww that down a little in about a week.
• BGFalcons82

  

  believer;530453 wrote:Hopefully we can sloooooooooooooowwwwwww that down a little in about a week.

  
  We better, or we are done.
• I Wear Pants

  believer;530453 wrote:In order to get "full" Social Security benefits I have to work until I'm 65 and a half.....and that's been in place for years.
  
  The French only demonstrate an entitlement mentality caused by decades of expecting its socialist government to take care of all their needs at the expense of personal responsibility and the freedoms and liberties that accompany it.
  
  The French are rioting and the Brits are tightening their socialist belts. Meanwhile the twits in DC are clamoring for European-style socialism in America.
  
  Hopefully we can sloooooooooooooowwwwwww that down a little in about a week.

  Denmark?
  
  I disagree with this rioting because it's clearly ridiculous though.
• believer

  

  I Wear Pants;530662 wrote:Denmark?

  ....and Sweden, Norway, Germany, Greece, Spain, Poland, Italy, and............
• I Wear Pants

  I was just bringing up that Denmark has one of the more liked welfare systems in the world and really high tax rates. Many here seem to think that anything that looks, sounds like, has hints of, or is socialism can never work for anything. I was using Denmark as a tongue in cheek way of saying "why doesn't theirs suck?". Also sometimes it's fun to stir the pot.
  
  I guess this is the part where I stay on topic and say that while I really love a lot about the French culture some of their more recent labor disputes (the one with students and this one) I haven't agreed with.
• CenterBHSFan

  

  I Wear Pants;531074 wrote:I was just bringing up that Denmark has one of the more liked welfare systems in the world and really high tax rates. Many here seem to think that anything that looks, sounds like, has hints of, or is socialism can never work for anything. I was using Denmark as a tongue in cheek way of saying "why doesn't theirs suck?". Also sometimes it's fun to stir the pot.
  
  I guess this is the part where I stay on topic and say that while I really love a lot about the French culture some of their more recent labor disputes (the one with students and this one) I haven't agreed with.

  
  What's the population of Denmark? Don't ya think it has just a little sumpin-sumpin to do with higher taxes in... less people taking?
• ptown_trojans_1

  

  The difference between the French government response and the UK government response to the economic crisis is really interesting.
• I Wear Pants

  CenterBHSFan;531286 wrote:What's the population of Denmark? Don't ya think it has just a little sumpin-sumpin to do with higher taxes in... less people taking?

  10 people putting in and 1 taking out is the same as 1000 putting in and 100 taking out no?
  
  Just FYI, I'm not arguing that we or anyone but the people of Denmark should use their system. I just don't like that people generalize that "oh higher taxes never work" or even the opposite "we need to raise taxes" because of how that same action worked in a different country. The United States isn't that country so the comparison may be interesting but it likely isn't fitting.
  
  And Ptown, it is always interesting to me to see how different governments and cultures react radically differently to the same situations.
• CenterBHSFan

  

  I Wear Pants;531322 wrote:10 people putting in and 1 taking out is the same as 1000 putting in and 100 taking out no?
  .

  If that was the ONLY factor, I would believe you were right. Unfortunately you and I both know that it isn't something so simple. My point about population was just that - a point.
  Would you rather take care of 1 person or millions? Would be an easy thing if all you had to do was dole out a scrap of bread and a bucket of water daily. But, when you factor in many other things it gets quite complicated. Agreed?
• I Wear Pants

  Yes of course, I was joking. A little bit trollishly but sometimes we all do that.
  
  But we can just hire Jesus to dole out the bread and water right? And we can then sell the excess bread and the wine to pay for our debts right? /blasphemy.
• CenterBHSFan

  

  I Wear Pants;531566 wrote:Yes of course, I was joking. A little bit trollishly but sometimes we all do that.
  
  But we can just hire Jesus to dole out the bread and water right? And we can then sell the excess bread and the wine to pay for our debts right? /blasphemy.

  
  You're going straight to H-E-doublehockeysticks
• I Wear Pants

  Indubitably.
• majorspark

  

  I Wear Pants;531074 wrote:I was just bringing up that Denmark has one of the more liked welfare systems in the world and really high tax rates. Many here seem to think that anything that looks, sounds like, has hints of, or is socialism can never work for anything. I was using Denmark as a tongue in cheek way of saying "why doesn't theirs suck?"

  Interesting thought you bring up here. I will be voting this November to raise my taxes in order to support a social service that my local school district provides. It is a small district. I can drive a few miles down the road to have a voice at the board meetings. They have managed my tax dollars well and I can easily make sure they will be good stewards of my added dollars.
  
  Socialism can work under certain conditions. It has a chance if it is administered over smaller groups of individuals with virtually universal demographics. Where corruption can be more easily guarded against. At the state level these conditions rarely exist. Denmark and a few others meet these conditions.
  
  Denmark has a populations of 5.5 million. Ethnically they are 90% Danish. 81% are members of the Danish National Church. I know a great surprise they have a national religion even to me. Denmark's style of government would never work EU wide. There would be hell to pay if it were tried. The nations of Europe have fought many wars to try and force their wills on each other.
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denmark
  
  Another aspect the Danes enjoy is NATO membership. It is far easier to spend national funds on your socialist utopia when you know if any nation lays a finger on you by treaty they bring the force of the greatest military power on the face of the earth at this time upon any aggressor.
  
  I have said many time the USA subsidizes the defense of many of these European nations. We foot the bill to maintain our vastly superior military budget to the benefit of member nations that do not devote such high percentages of their budgets to their nation's defense. We do it primarily for our own security, but also to maintain some level of control over the defense affairs of these nations. Take the USA's promised defense out of the picture and see how many of these nations can maintain their social budgets.
  
  Also you would be surprised what some of us on here think. The constitution does not prohibit socialist forms of government. It limits the federal government's powers. So much so that I believe a federal socialist type government would not be constitutional. It does however allow the individual states or the people (local communities) to choose such socialist type governments. I have no problem with socialist type government, so long as it works, its constitutional, and I as a citizen of the USA have a choice not to live under it. For example I can move within the Union if I so choose.
• I Wear Pants

  Good post majorspark.
  
  What's hilarious about us subsidizing their defense is that the same people who rail against socialism (on a broad basis, not things like local libraries and such) in the states usually support nearly anything involved with the military...therefore supporting Europe's dependence on us which allows them to continue with their social programs. Which those same military supporters then complain about. It's like a vicious circle of wrongly placed blame, wrongly allocated funds, and overstepping the bounds of what we should be expected to do militarily as well as what we're willing to do.
  
  Hopefully I was able to articulate what I meant so that it's understandable.
• believer

  

  majorspark;531746 wrote:I have said many time the USA subsidizes the defense of many of these European nations. We foot the bill to maintain our vastly superior military budget to the benefit of member nations that do not devote such high percentages of their budgets to their nation's defense. We do it primarily for our own security, but also to maintain some level of control over the defense affairs of these nations. Take the USA's promised defense out of the picture and see how many of these nations can maintain their social budgets.

  
  Considering that the Cold War is allegedly over and that this nation is basically bankrupt, it's time we withdrew our military from Europe and let the Europeans who have been benefiting from that arrangement fend for themselves regardless of how much we think we're gaining by having a say in the defense affairs of those nations.
  
  I'm not advocating isolationism. I'm simply saying the cost-benefit of maintaining an expensive American military presence in a post-Cold Wat Europe is no longer viable.
• BGFalcons82

  

  believer;531782 wrote:Considering that the Cold War is allegedly over and that this nation is basically bankrupt, it's time we withdrew our military from Europe and let the Europeans who have been benefiting from that arrangement fend for themselves regardless of how much we think we're gaining by having a say in the defense affairs of those nations.
  
  I'm not advocating isolationism. I'm simply saying the cost-benefit of maintaining an expensive American military presence in a post-Cold Wat Europe is no longer viable.

  
  Bingo. It's time to pay the piper. Let's see how socialism flourishes when they have to defend themselves or pay to be defended.
• ptown_trojans_1

  

  believer;531782 wrote:Considering that the Cold War is allegedly over and that this nation is basically bankrupt, it's time we withdrew our military from Europe and let the Europeans who have been benefiting from that arrangement fend for themselves regardless of how much we think we're gaining by having a say in the defense affairs of those nations.
  
  I'm not advocating isolationism. I'm simply saying the cost-benefit of maintaining an expensive American military presence in a post-Cold Wat Europe is no longer viable.

  
  I'm sort of for that. However, Ramstein offers the U.S. a great, great service in medical facilities that we use or can use in current and future conflicts. I'm not willing to give that up yet. Nor am I willing to eradicate NATO, a viable and workable military alliance that may need to be reduced, but not eliminated.
  
  I am for pulling all non-essential personal out of Europe as well as our tactical nuclear weapons in Belgium, Italy and Germany.
  
  However, two things we need to be aware of when withdrawing from Europe: Our Eastern European allies (Poles, Czechs) and Turkey. If we withdraw too much, the Eastern Europeans will get nervous that Russia will creep in and take over influence. Also, Turkey may get nervous about Iran and start to break with U.S. policy, including building their own nuclear weapons.
• gut

  BGFalcons82;531814 wrote:Bingo. It's time to pay the piper. Let's see how socialism flourishes when they have to defend themselves or pay to be defended.

  
  Europe's economy has lagged for years. Many economists site the heavy overhang of socialism and disincentives to work.
• tk421

  

  Really? You mean to tell me that if a population gets accustomed to the government giving them everything, they'll be less inclined to want to work? Wow, who would have thought?
• Ghmothwdwhso

  I Wear Pants;531322 wrote:10 people putting in and 1 taking out is the same as 1000 putting in and 100 taking out no?
  
  Just FYI, I'm not arguing that we or anyone but the people of Denmark should use their system. I just don't like that people generalize that "oh higher taxes never work" or even the opposite "we need to raise taxes" because of how that same action worked in a different country. The United States isn't that country so the comparison may be interesting but it likely isn't fitting.
  
  And Ptown, it is always interesting to me to see how different governments and cultures react radically differently to the same situations.

  
  A Ponzi scheme is a Ponzi scheme no matter where it's attempted. If it's still working for a country now, it just hasn't caught up with them yet. But it will, it always does.
• gut

  tk421;534386 wrote:Really? You mean to tell me that if a population gets accustomed to the government giving them everything, they'll be less inclined to want to work? Wow, who would have thought?

  
  Exactly. The subtle point many don't get is that Americans are the most consumptive society, in every way, by far. SOMEONE has to work to create that value to buy stuff. The govt can't magically create that value for you. I would venture to guess that most Americans would find their standard of living under European-style socialism unacceptable. Work less, play harder is a pipe dream.
• Belly35

  

  Acorn a French organization?
• I Wear Pants

  Ghmothwdwhso;534550 wrote:A Ponzi scheme is a Ponzi scheme no matter where it's attempted. If it's still working for a country now, it just hasn't caught up with them yet. But it will, it always does.

  Social programs aren't (well they could be I guess) Ponzi schemes.
• CenterBHSFan

  

  I Wear Pants;534764 wrote:Social programs aren't (well they could be I guess) Ponzi schemes.

  
  Technically they're not supposed to be. But how else, right now, would you describe SS, medicaid? How else would you describe what we have allowed our government to do to these programs?