E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Eric Feferberg / AP
France's incumbent President Nicolas Sarkozy strolls along the sea front after his last campaign meeting in Les Sables-d'Olonne, western France, Friday.
Every reliable pollster in France is predicting a blowout. Socialist Party leader Francois Hollande will beat President Nicolas Sarkozy – a center-right conservative – by 5 to 6 percent.
So, will this 2012 presidential election be a yawner? Neither candidate thinks so. On Friday – the final day of campaigning – both Sarkozy and Hollande zig-zagged across the country like a couple of bumble bees in a patch of fresh flowers.
Every vote at every stop still seemed to count. At the end of the day, an exhausted Hollande spoke to reporters from his Paris headquarters, saying that he never underestimated his rival’s resilience or conviction. "Nicolas Sarkozy’s big mistake," he added, "was to underestimate my own."
Sarkozy ended his election campaign –- which in his case only lasted a few months –- on live French TV.
Sounding almost docile, Sarkozy asked politely for each viewers’ vote to prevent the "catastrophe" of an Hollande presidency.
It was a far cry from the rotweiller who tried – and failed – at every turn to go for Hollande’s jugular during their one and only debate on Wednesday night.
Nicolas Sarkozy and his socialist rival Francois Hollande debate ahead of Sunday's election.
But even Sarkozy must be humbled by the Harry Truman-like challenge he faces: Pollsters say he needs to swing at least 1.5 million more voters his way to stand a chance.
But his options are running out – the right-wing leader of the National Front, Marine le Pen, called on her millions of supporters to "vote with their conscience," but said she would cast a blank ballot.
Then, Sarkozy’s last hope, the "centrist" Francois Bayrou, who won almost 10% of the vote in the first round, paid Sarkozy the ultimate insult. He announced he’d be voting for the left-wing Hollande.
Meet Monsieur Caramel Pudding, likely French president
Lionel Cironneau / AP
French Socialist Party candidate Francois Hollande speaks during a meeting in Perigueux, Southwestern France, Friday.
Still, political analysts here like to remind me that French presidential elections, in a nation split pretty much in half politically, always go down to the wire.
French polls are notoriously wrong. And while his campaign team has turned it into a positive, we mustn’t forget that Hollande’s main attraction has been his very unemotional blandness.
He’s nicknamed "Flanby," after a popular soft-and-squishy cream pudding, a staple for French families.
Sarkozy fails to floor Hollande in France election television debate
Now that may be reassuring for many French who’ve had to endure five years of the mercurial, often explosive, Sarkozy, but are some having second thoughts?
"Hollande is not a swashbuckling, excited and excitable crisis manager, which is Sarkozy’s hallmark," said French analyst Francois Heisbourg. "And we don’t know actually how Hollande will react under stress. He hasn’t been in a position where he’s had to deal with a major international or national crisis. There is an element of the unknown.’’
Another unknown for many economists here is just how Hollande intends to untie this Gordion Knot: How, as he’s pledged, will be create 60,000 new teachers’ jobs, lower the retirement age from 62 back to 60, stimulate growth AND cut the deficit to zero by 2017 (the end of his presumed term)?
Other world leaders have attempted much less, and failed.
'A turning point'
International markets are watching, and wondering too, on a knife’s edge. "France is at a turning point,’’ said Heisbourg.
Hollande will either get the Euro-zone deal he needs from Germany’s Angela Merkel, the green light to stimulate growth in France, or France is in for years of instability. "And remember,’’ he warned, "if things go badly in France, that has twice the impact on America than if things go wrong in China.’’
Hollande, a wonk of the first order, can rattle off the inner workings of his economic plan - without notes – and with great conviction.
But Sarkozy – and many others – say it’s a fantasy.
"You’re simply spending more, taxing more, and creating more debt,’’ Sarkozy retorted at their debate. "And there isn’t a single country that would adopt your ideas for growth!’’
Still, Sarkozy’s chances look slim.
It’s perhaps why, on his website and on the final day of the campaign, a video appeared that seemed to stretch the truth.
It stated that many world leaders "respect and support" the French President, including Merkel, British Prime Minister David Cameron, and … U.S. President Barack Obama.
Hollande, reportedly, saw red. His team sent a barrage of phone calls to the U.S. Embassy, asking since when had Obama officially endorsed Sarkozy? Under pressure, an embassy spokesman released a statement, saying "The U.S. government does not support any candidate.’’
Sarkozy – desperate – is playing to his strengths – his flashy character, his tried and tested leadership, his palsy relations with European and U.S. leaders, his ego. But it’s an indication of just how fed up the French are with Sarkozy’s presidency that, despite all his flaws, Hollande - the ruddy faced bureaucrat who in a 30-year political career has never held even a minor cabinet post - is poised to become France’s first Socialist president in a generation.
Or is he? Don’t count Sarkozy out. A yawner? Maybe on paper. But come Sunday, this’ll be a nail-biter.
Jim Maceda, an NBC news foreign correspondent based in London, has covered French presidential elections since the 1970s.
More world news from msnbc.com and NBC News:
- Prostitute at center of Secret Service scandal speaks out
- Deal nears on blind China activist as US offers fellowship
- Blind activist: What did he do to rile Beijing?
- Meet Monsieur Caramel Pudding, likely French president
- Water access spurs resentment in West Bank
- Suicide bombers kill 12, wound 110 in Russia
- Apology to journalist fired for WWII surrender scoop
Follow us on Twitter: @msnbc_world
Leave a Comment:
Fluber sounds like the republican, 5000,000 jobs a month.
The 'bottom line' is that Hollande is a socialist who promises the French that the 'austerity' program proposed by Sarkozy to protect against a future financial collapse is 'unnecessary'.
People will always vote for the one that 'promises no pain', even though the pain will obviously be greater in the long run when the debt gets even more 'out of control'. I guess it's their version of 'Hope and Change'.
I suspect that the French will quickly find 'the error of their ways' when the Germans stop providing financial support for France, and they join Greece, Italy and Spain as 'basket cases' - ultimately leading to the collapse of the European Union.
We can stand back and see our own future if Obama gets another four years.
Roy, you realize that Greece, Italy, and Spain are in the positions they are because of austerity programs, right? And Germany is successful because it has doubled down on its investment in its people? You're pointing out the exact countries which have proven how terrible austerity is during a downward slide and yet you still support it.
Austerity programs are necessary when past governments have over spent and they no longer have enough money to pay all the bills. The same will come to the US shortly. We are over spending with little chance of re-paying the debt. You can't keep spending money you don't have without dire consequences. Greece and Spain are two great examples.
Growth cannot happen without investment, as Spain and Greece, and now the UK have found out. Growth brings cash, not cutting the life out of schools, infrastructure, and education. Jobs, which the Repubs have proven over and over, only get sent overseas, in search for ever bigger profits. France is coming to it's senses.
Alan Pugh "Roy, you realize that Greece, Italy, and Spain are in the positions they are because of austerity programs, right?"
Wrong - They are in the positions they are in because they tried to use permanent deficit financing to 'stimulate' their economies, and now they are approaching the point where lenders are no longer willing to continue to bail them out. Even the European Union has set a deficit level of about 3% of GDP as 'sustainable', but it gets seriously in the danger zone when it approaches 10%, as it has in several southern European nations.
In the United States, it is close to 10%, which is unsustainable, but as we're finding out, it's easy for politicians to SPEND money and make promises, but it's very difficult to stop that spending when people get used to it - sort of like 'getting hooked on drugs'. The USA now has a National Debt of $15.7 Trillion, which is greater than its GDP - and when you really get down to it, that $15.7 Trillion represents 'stimulus spending' over the last 50 years.
It happens when debt gets 'out of control' and is a reflection of the failed application of Keynesian economic principles. Keynes ideas are actually sound (in my opinion), but they have been misapplied, which is why we now have such a problem - Keynes said 'use deficit spending in a recession, and then use excess revenues in a recovery to repay the deficits'. Unfortunately, we have used deficits to finance our recovery, but then, instead of using the excess funds from the recovery to repay the debt, the politicians use that extra money to fund more expensive 'entitlements', and the debt just keeps growing. That's also why $1.00 from 1970 is worth only $0.16 now because of inflation.
And again, something for nothing wins the day. When an economy overheats it needs to correct. All stimulus does is delay the inevitable and digs the hole deeper. The fact that many countries are going through a recession now is a GOOD thing. Their economy will reset and they can grow from there.
When you rely on stimulus, you become addicted to it. You are seeing it in this country now and it's digging us a hole we may never get out of. FDR had his lost decade, Japan had it's lost decade, now Obama has started us on his lost decade. The real problem is, the longer we go without correcting the worse it will be.
If you look at our debt/GDP ratio we wil be beyond Greece in less than a decade if drastic measures aren't taken, and there is no one to bail us out. The biggest mistake liberals make is to assume if government doesn't have your money it isn't there. The truth is, if greedy bureaucrats don't get their hands on your money it doesn't disappear, it's still in the economy. It's just in the private sector, not the public, and the private sector does an infinitely better job of investing their money than the public sector.
If you want stimulus, cut the corporate tax rate, stop churning out a dozen new regulations a day, and roll back draconian regulations that do nothing but keep lawyers employed.
Roy, you are absolutely right. It is simple to understand, but as you said once hooked IMPOSSIBLE to cut the strings. I don't care what the planned cut, somebody would rail it is somehow going to kill many. So politicians back off and just keep promising and spending.
The truth is that this austerity measure has been a lot more talk that reality. Greece has been circling the drain for years as have Italy. It has nothing to do with austerity. It has everything to do with spending borrowed money that can't be paid back.
Everybody knows governments waste billions of dollars. The problem is removing that waste without upsetting the applecart. Pain is not welcomed.
This lefty politician plans to raise taxes on those that are successful and giving that money back to those not as successful. The problem is that promotes apathy and lack of interest to get ahead knowing all that hard work will be taxed to death. So pretty soon more and more people are looking to their neighbor to support them. I see it around me more and more everyday.
It will get much, much worse before eyes are opened.
I wish the US would stop copulating around and move to the European social model. No wars, taxes used to benefit citizens, and a progressive tax system. We've kissed the arse of the wealthy long enough--while we in the Middle Class are disappearing. The GOP has ruined this nation. (Roy Wilson imitation--bold line, paid blogger.) 27 Nations in the EU, and all but 3 have more sound economies than we do. They have universal health coverage, tax paid education in most of the EU countries, and quality infrastructure.
Nah----let's not move forward--let's ride in the buggy with out TP friends, hate other races, kiss the feet of the rich and let people that can't afford healthcare die. WWARD Would would Ayn Rand do?
sandtrich "I wish the US would stop copulating around and move to the European social model. No wars, taxes used to benefit citizens, and a progressive tax system. We've kissed the arse of the wealthy long enough--while we in the Middle Class are disappearing. The GOP has ruined this nation. (Roy Wilson imitation--bold line, paid blogger.)"
Gee, I must have missed the pay - must be 'in the mail'. lol
If you look at the history over the last 30 years, you would see that economic growth and per-capita income in the US is much higher than in Europe - In fact, after-tax per capita income in the US is about DOUBLE that of most European countries, and that's after providing about 90% of Americans with health insurance.
One thing I WILL agree with you on, however, is that we need 'universal health care'. It's ridiculously costly and unconscionable that we don't provide health care for everyone. There are many successful models that provide quality care at reasonable cost (France and Taiwan are among the best), and we should emulate their successful systems of health care. Actually, since our current system is so dysfunctional, we could give care to everyone AND save perhaps a $Trillion per year in costs, while making our businesses more competitive.
PS - As for a 'progressive' tax system, the bottom 50% of income earners in Europe pay a MUCH HIGHER effective tax rate than those in America, so our tax system is actually much more 'progressive' than those European countries - if we adopted their 'progressive tax rates', it would benefit the 'rich' in this country much more than the 'poor'.
Alan Pugh - You left out one small detail. Greece's austerity measures weren't by choice. They simply couldn't borrow anymore money and were forced to cut spending.
Austerity regimes are the tools of corporate interests who are more interested in profits today than the futures of the nations that they are ruining.
Down to the heart of it, every country has its' own political system. The question is does that system serve the majority or the smallest group of its' citizens.
In the USA the answer is obvious. We have a political system that is ready, willing and able to throw any person not entitled (read not wealthy) under the bus. We are purposely being segmented into groups and within these groups we are set to hate and fight against any other group. The name of this type of system is 'divide and rule'.
The main political parties are nothing but a phoney choice between two wings of the same party. The representation of the majority of citizens is all but non-existent. There are no quick fixes to this since the majority have been indoctrinated to believe the fallacies that nothing can be done because we are powerless and that voting for any politician will radically change the course of events.
Guess what ? It's not going to happen. If you want to want to real change you must fight for your rights. This was true within the colonial times and is never more true than today. Unless you want to sit there and serve the interests of the parasitical group of Illuminati who are willing to incorporate you into a system where you are merely a pawn with no rights or freedom with an ever decreasing standard of living while your masters are laughing at your ignorance.
It is governments job to insure that a countrys citiizens have opportunity...It is not to insure that everyone gets handed a mediocre, near poverty existence. Put the responsibility back on the person and remove the blame for the successful....Government that is operating with no self control will soon enough die from the debt that it is forcing on to its citizens...
This will not be a nail-biter. Every poll for the past six months show Hollande winning and no poll has shown the race closer than 6%. This is the end for the "austerians" and their Herbert Hoover approach to the "debt crisis".
"This is the end for the "austerians" and their Herbert Hoover approach to the "debt crisis" ......Is that so ........How about the 75% tax increase on the upper class that the socialist is proposing ? That sounds pretty Hoover like to me ......
Hoover's approach to the Great Depression of 1929 was pure austerity - cut government spending and reduce taxes. That approach failed miserably. Pro-1%er economists seemed to have forgotten.
Indigena, it's always refreshing to run into someone who hasn't forgotten the lessons of Keynes or wrote them off as "flawed" after FDR proved the strength of investment during economic downturns. Austerity is for when we're doing exceptionally well... the government can cut social services when we're near full employment and we can bank that surplus. When things get tough, we need to employ through public works and keep people working and earning an income to help the private sector bounce back. It's simple math but it's not directly for the benefit of our nation's richest, so our government ignores it.
Bottom line: Friedman got us into this mess and we're doubling down on failed economics. Give us back our Keynesian economy so we can get out of this recession. We're starting with ALBA, and next up is Hollande in France.
FDR's programs were a complete failure, they delayed the recovery until well into WW2. Even noted liberal economists admit his programs did nothing to improve the economy.
When Obama got his stimulus unemployment went up. Only after the stimulus ran out and public sector began laying off people did the unemployment rate begin to ease. The private sector creates wealth, the public sector destroys it. The last thing we need to do is give more money to wealth destruction and less to wealth creation. How many Solyndra's and Fiskars do we have to go through to get it.
Keynesian economics's has never worked, period. It is supply side economics that has worked every time, from Kennedy on. Friedman was right, and our explosive growth through the decades has proved it. Capitalism has been a success all around the world, it is socialist spending that is bankrupting whole countries.
PValdes "How about the 75% tax increase on the upper class that the socialist is proposing ?"
It will prove a useful test of the 'Laffer Curve', so we can see for ourselves if dramatically raising taxes on those who invest and create jobs actually improves or hurts their economy.
Personally, I've never had anyone explain how giving the government more money to spend solves any long term problems, especially with government's notoriously inefficient allocation of funds.
Government and waste are synonyms!
Well maybe we need to fix that rather than trying to destroy government being that there will be some form of government regardless how good or bad it is.
Too bad because I like Sarkozy...he has guts. The socialist will not be able to imkprove the economy by implementing more taxes...the result will be the opposite.
Kind of like where the USA is headed?
If we can just take down the 1% and redistribute their wealth all will be well.
Key word ......"TAKE" as in "STEAL"
Disgusted, PValdes and Jennifer... I wanted to recommend Paul Krugman's latest book to you. He proposes that we simply end the recession now. Crazy, right? It can't be that easy! Except it is, and FDR proved it. Austerity during economic downturn is a catalyst for more disaster.
The socialist will be in charge for a few years and when they see the country is running out of money they will vote someone else in.
And like here. it will be too little too late. There is no possibility that our economy can be turned around now and we are definitely headed to economic ruin.
Alan, FDR took 12 years to get us out of that economic mess with his expansion of government and spending. And it took a world war even then to finally put us over the top. FDR is the worst possible example you could use to promote spending an federal bureaucracy as an answer. Austerity is not an answer but neither is spending. Private enterprise will bring us out if we allow it to do so! It is the middle way between the two extremes and it has always served us well - even with its occasional scandals which pale iin comparison to the federal bureaucracy scandals!
Alan ...when the people with money leave France the rest ( the majority ) will be left to their own devices. After you spread the wealth ....then what ? I get blue in the face trying to reason with Liberals. Explain to me how taxing the 1%- 75% is NOT an austerity measure ......
Alan, I assume you're proposing an FDR-like approach by pushing tons of money into the markets through infrastructure programs, contracts, and what-not? Yes, a bit of Keynesian economics does wonders for a depression/recession, and austerity certainly doesn't help. The problem, though, is that the country has too much debt to replay that solution. If our debt were, say, less than $3 trillion... sure, I'd support some massive spending programs. But it's not and all we can do is maintain current spending rates (part of the reason we're recovering so slowly). Unfortunately, that leaves the options of cutting spending in other places to keep spending for job creation, or raise revenue to accomplish the same thing. More or less, that requires raising taxes on the very rich and no one else (because that would lose votes).
Now, if the government only took such measures during recessions and cut spending and paid off our debt during the good years, I could live with that. Can't say I like the idea of ridiculous tax rates even for a small amount of time, but if it kept us strong... but I don't even have to put myself in this hypothetical because I know historically that our government doesn't take responsibility even during the good years. (The only possible exception being Clinton with a minor surplus.) The problem with our current government is that it takes in more revenue, but then spends more and more. Then we don't have enough money to take a Keynesian approach to a recession and we're really screwed.
That's the problem with Keynes, it requires spending then saving. It is flawed from the start because spending is addictive. Once you start in a down cycle, you can reason your way into spending even more in an up cycle because you can "afford it", vote buying at it's best.
This becomes particularly true when the party in power thinks government is the answer so all solutions require more and more spending. Solution doesn't work? SPEND EVEN MORE! How many times have we heard that?
Any system that totally ignores human nature is pathetic to say the least. It's the same with tax hikes, liberals will say it will bring in x billion dollars. What they completely ignore is people will change their behaviour to avoid the tax! That's why tax increases never bring in what they promise and tax reductions never cost what they claim.
Noryc, I'm with you in the thought that we should only provide public investment during periods of private hardship, and when the private sector emerges, the public investment should be lessened accordingly to transition labor back to the private sector. Of course, I think we both know that this sort of measured and logical approach would be called a "flip flop" by the media and those who parrot their talking points, because in this country leaders are expected to make a decision and ride it to death, not to adapt to the circumstances.
My spending is your income, my income is your spending. Economics 101. Private boom periods are the appropriate time for austerity as this is when social services are needed least. This theory that "private sector creates wealth while public sector destroys it" is just ludicrous. It's an ongoing balance to keep citizens employed and earning wages and consuming.
Also, the whole "FDR failed and everyone agrees," please... revisionist history created by Friedman and Reagan. The fact is FDR inherited the Great Depression then he fixed it through investments when they were needed, and then transitioned the WPA and other programs out as employees moved back to the private sector. I'm repeating myself here, I know, but there are some people here parroting talking points that are completely historically inaccurate and it's mind-numbing.
I was liberal when I was a child and had no understanding of human nature, why, I voted for jfk and lbj. Once I became an adult and realised the people are not idealized machines, I became conservative.
People thrive on adversity but atrophy on assistance. It's a fact, you could look it up.
I was a conservative as a child when I saw bums not working and collecting welfare checks, then I grew up and realized how tough things can be when you're living in a car and trying your best to scrounge together your next meal despite having a good education and a solid work ethic. That's when I became a democratic socialist. (See: Senator Bernie Sanders)
I'm in the top third these days and a stronger safety net would cost me... I'm OK with that, because I'm not any more important than those kids struggling to make their way in the world, getting an education, working two jobs, living with their parents because minimum wage doesn't cover rent and nobody else is hiring. I've been at rock bottom and I clawed my way out... in the richest nation in the world, nobody should have to live in a car or under a bridge.
Yes society functions well when we are all involved and working together. Right wingers just don't get that maybe they are just the last vestiges of mans barbarian nature.
Says alan pugh, "I've been at rock bottom and I clawed my way out."
You could be a poster boy for the last part of my post, 3.10, and still you do not ubderstand. You could have taken the handouts and today, be a physical and mental weakling. You chose not to, you have my congratulations.
How many will, willingly, make the hard choice?
The French must come to their senses and vote Sarkozy back into office. The world needs Carla Bruni.
She is hot! Much better to look at than "hips" Obama. Ever notice how the media never allows a picture of Michelle waist down? She has enormous hips and thighs - bigger than Hillary even and that really says something.
Of course, some would say one should take cheap shots at the first lady but since Dewdle did so I thought I would join in.
Hardly a nail biter as most polls have Hollande 10 points ahead!
I like Czar Kozy.
lol.
Maybe Obama will bring him here and add him to the czars that he has running our country.
I kept wondering why Jim Macedo knew so little about food until I noticed he was based in London.
As you travel, you find that foods, and deserts in particular, lose a lot in translation. Flan, or creme caramel, or custard pudding in plain American, is known internationally as the only desert you can order world-wide with confidence, because it's simple, tasty, and even an English-trained cook can't screw it up too badly.
What Francoise Hollande offers is consistent, rational, balanced governance. I can see why the reactionaries on these threads, enamored as they are of an econimic model that looks most like a lovechild of Hoover and Mussolini by way of Ayn Rand, would find Hollande a bore.
Sarkozy's anti-immigrant xenophobe-courting also strikes a chord with American reactionaries.
Those social and economic policies are anachronistic. They landed the US in it's current trough. In the end, the rational public will reject them both Sunday in France and in November here in America.
Those that ignore 2010 are doomed to repeat it.
France is tired of their "Las Vegas Playboy" president that does nothing to lay a foundation of morals for young French citizens. They will probably fair better culturally under the leadership of a more stable Hollande.
They are tired of being controlled by Germany! Greece also says that it feels as if they are once more occupied by Germany when that country now sets their economic policy. Europe is about to collapse and our president still insists on using them as his economic model.
Well, seeing as Germany isn't doing half bad... in comparison, anyway.
Another obamy type leader who wants to have his country socialized. Take and tax the working people especially the rich to give to those who either cant or just dont want to. How well did this experiment work in russia/cuba. Even cuba is starting to put in economic changes seeing how socialism has not worked for over 50 years.
You make several great points. Socialism as a whole does not work well for the long term. When people find they can get something from the government for doing nothing then they do nothing and try to live off the taxes on those who actually work.
It does seem to be working in Norway and Canada but it is because they are exploiting their oil resources there. Irony is that Obama could get his socialist agenda passed and working well if he would do the same here but his allegiance to the environmentalist lobby won't allow him to do it. And so he self-destructs as the economy falls into ruin.
And don't believe those propped up statistics that they are putting out. Unemployment is at 10.7% if they use the total employed when he took office instead of the lower number now - which matches the number employed 30 years ago. And this does not include those who had to take part-time employment which he counts as employed now - or those who take full-time jobs at 60% of their previous pay. And of course inflation is only 2% when one leaves food, gasoline and energy prices out of the mix - he says they are too volatile to include!
Socialism has never worked from the get-go. Russia lost two generations with Lenin's little experiment with social engineering. My wife and I camped through the old Soviet Union in 1972. The infrastructure was crumbling, the people were depressed and begging for a small glimps of the "outside" world. We entered as two young idealistic liberals in a VW camper who exited through Odessa one month later shocked and awakened. We still have the VW and probably the only one in existance with a NObama bumper sticker!
Russia was better off before 1991. Cuba has been very successful despite the US embargo. Norway, Sweden, Denmark and Germany have all been at the top of several economic indicators for decades.
Obama passed a mandate for buying private health insurance. As a socialist, I can safely say he's not one of us at all. He's very much a corporatist conservative.
Russia was horrible before 1991. Major shortages, especially food. The black market was the only thing in Russia that worked. Ask people who lived in Russia back the. I had a few friends that came to college after the wall came down. All their stories were the same it did not matter where in Russia they lived and it was worst then some third world countries. Cuba, you must be joking, the only thing that kept them going was people here sending money back, and again the black market. Norway, Sweden, Denmark, and Germany are not pure socialist.
Ah, the No True Scotsman fallacy, the most overused fallacy when discussing socialism. Huntington, there has never been a pure capitalist nation either. Regulations and market controls are always put in place for the common good. In a purely unfettered capitalist nation, the borders would be fully open so that more labor could freely enter the workforce. So, true, there are no purely socialist nations just as there are no purely capitalist nations.
Did you know a growing segment of Russian workers are trying to bring about the rise of USSR 2.0? Much like the Cubans in Florida who rail against Castro, I'm guessing your friends who were excited for capitalism were wealthy and connected people. The Cuban-Americans who speak out against Cuba are angry families of formerly wealthy elites who took advantage of the working poor in matters of housing and agriculture and when Castro overthrew Batista, returning the land and the housing to the people, the elites were understandably upset that their meal ticket was being taken away.
There's an Ayn Rand style philosophy in the United States that is so pervasive that it becomes impossible to comprehend how someone could support Marxist ideologies. We're taught from the day we're born to be selfish, greedy hoarders and that sharing never got anyone to the top. It's completely rational in this country that a CEO makes 500 times what his workers make because we all like to think we're just a temporarily displaced millionaire ourselves, but most of us will never even break $50,000/year.
I'm on the opposite end of the spectrum. I live quite comfortably and I would be fine with more of my money being used to provide a public works employment program to increase demand, which has been proven to help fire up the private sector. Besides, our infrastructure is crap and could benefit greatly from the work.
Tomorrow is very important to the US. If this election goes as reported and the elections in Greece dump the two top parties as predicted you can bet the stock market will drop 300-500 points on Monday. Tomorrow could mark the beginning of the end of the Euro zone and that will profoundly affect this country as all of Europe drops into deep recession.
Meanwhile our president ignores all this and continues his agenda to follow the European model into economic ruin. Oh well ... . Who cares so long as he promises too give me more - at least until there is no more.
Go ahead make my day... If they elect pudding it's all over for the Euro and is going to cause serious damage to our already weak economy. Frogs
When a country get enough of the population accustom to living on entitlements, do you think they will vote for someone who is preaching fical responsibility? Work? be self-supporting? why the government owes me an comfortable life. When we get enough people on the dole, we will be able to take all of the money the 1% have and we won't have to work either. Just one big socialist utopia, just like Cuba and the old Soviet Union (that worked out real well).
Who cares? There is nothing relevant about France.
Considering the situation in France, Europe and the Western world, it's not a nail biter, it's a no-brainer.
Right wing greed, thirst for power and control caused them to invest in all countries but their own. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot.......
Right-wingers: please take some responsibility for your behaviors in your society.
The ultimate greed is stealing what you haven't earned from your neighbor. The ultimate cowardice is having the government steal it for you.
I just saw in interview with an OWS guy. He said "we are going to get free food and free medical care and it will be paid by the community". I wonder how long it will take him to figure out HE is part of that community. How long will it take socialists to realize there is no free lunch.
If this socialist idiot get's elected I hope every French millionaire heads for Monaco or the Caymans and leaves France twisting in the wind. If they are that stupid, nothing but a 2x4 up side the head will pound some sense into them. As said above, he will be the end of the Euro and the EU in general.
I'm still not convinced Phil, please tell me more.
Chanel No.5 for everyone!
The French are expecting civil unrest and as a result have announced it has raised its security alert level from "RUN" to "HIDE". The only two higher levels in France are "SURRENDER" and "COLLABORATE". The rise was precipitated by a fire which destroyed France's white flag factory, effectively paralyzing the military.
Bland against exciteable??? Come on media, use some sense sometime please....I dont know who will win, but it seems that France is just attracted enough to socialism and its false promises that they are attracted to vote that way. Dont all the socialist promises sound good??? Prosperity to be handed out by the government and no one has to pay for it....Yea, that is great. Utopia is just around the socialist corner....Like magic. Lets all vote for magic...
I wish I could watch the crummy political attack advertisements off of french tv, subtitled of course my french is for crap. I bet they are shades of histerical.. do the right wing have their own flush limpballs conservative rant radio? I imagine fat white men in turtle neck sweatervests with berets and just purple-faced angry.
In 12 years of GOP leadership, the last four being GOP control over the US senate and house of representatives, brought on the greatest depression in US history. Such was not just measured by the GOP favorate indicators of money pouring out of Wall Street into the pockets of a few, but homelessness, starvation, and utter poverty and hopelessness for the many. FDR did start to take us out of the Great Depression, and his longevity in office proved he did just that. Had he not improved things for the lot of Americans, he would have at best, only won second term by a slim margin.
In 08 the banks failed again, and don't believe for a second that any GOP president wouldn't have refused to bail them out because afterall, they finance the superpacs behind them.
The last outrageous bank bailout and acquiescence to Big Oil came under Obama's watch.
Out of all the campaign promises, only the extreme gay lobbyists benefitted.
The banks failed because of 8 years of the Bush Administration. He bankrupted the country with 2 wars. One year prior to this banking crisis Greenspan warned of an impending banking crisis.
I bet he didn't bankrupt himself, now did he? he has kept quiet since he bailed, must be enjoying life.
Whose kidding who. Latin America did 9/11. Mexico has made the most money from it.
The CHOICE: Cut spending,decrease the size of government or Increase spending,raise taxes(more entitlements). Sounds like Wisconsin.
Sarkozy is the victim of neo-cons as what happens here in the US. Their routine verbiage only serves to mask their hidden agendas that are exposed at the most critical times. They are getting to be like their leftist colleagues in that they resemble watermelons; green on the outside and red inside!
Sounds like France may elect their version of Obama. I wonder if they will like there HOPE and CHANGE as much as we do here.
Yes get rid of all socialist police forces, fire depts and armed forces!!..funny how those that hate socialism are not thrilled with that idea, so maybe socialism is ok. HOLLANDE 2012!!!
Terry,
Hey, p(u)tz. Police and fire depts are LOCAL issues, not national (federal). They are issues that are different for each local community that a central government (Washington) cannot and should not have any part in. Sort of like your parents being the "socialists" of your home and its finances. These are issues that can best be handled by the LOCAL community and the head of your household.
The Armed Forces are things we need to protect all of us that no local or individual can do. REALLY bad examples!
Why are people like you allowed to vote?
If the Muslim Brotherhood candidate is not leading the election, there's no reason to worry about it.