Comments
Et si on envoyait notre Gvt en stage aux Usa , tu crois qu'ils apprendraient quelque chose ?
:p :p ;)
Posted by:
fred |
October 10, 2003 06:38 PM
We have him for a few more years, then you can have him.
Posted by:
jkrank |
October 11, 2003 11:50 AM
jkrank:
There it is. They were right.
They've been telling us relentlessly, but we never listened.
They were right, and I was wrong.
But I didn't see it.
And there you come, consenting to turn from your court of gorgeous balkanic beauties and alcoholic refreshments for a split second, and sling at my very friendly face the overwhelming evidence backing what's Michael Boor - sorry, Moore - among other splendid and noble voices in the wilderness have been repeatedly warning us about:
The utter selfishness of the Americans.
Fine. Keep your President.
I'm changing to "the opposant frogman, time to CHANGE sides".
You're not gonna like it, mind me.
Posted by:
the dissident frogman |
October 11, 2003 12:19 PM
J'ai une meilleure idée: la France doit quitter l'UE et devenir un Etat Uni.
D'Amérique. Evidemment, il faudrait faire subire aux français un stage de d'une vingtaine ou une trentaine d'années de délavage de
cerveau pour les désintoxiquer de l'Immonde et de Collaboration.
C''est aussi une excellente idée à lancer devant un communiste au
coeur fragile.
I have a better idea: France must leave the EU and become a United State. Of America. Of course the French would need to be subject to a twenty or thirty years of debrainwashing from the hideous lies of such media as "Le Monde" aka the Pravda and Liberation aka Der Sturmer.
It is also great to say this when in hearing distance from a communist
with a heart condition. :-)
Posted by:
JFM |
October 11, 2003 01:27 PM
JFM:
Hmm, I'm afraid that our commies are in such a state of denial of reality (remember that, for them, Chirac and Ra-Fous-Rien are "right wingers" and "ultraliberals") that they would tell you we already are...
But that would be a funny campaign idea, for sure.
Posted by:
the dissident frogman |
October 11, 2003 01:36 PM
Ok , so ii's a bad idea "to post" a french GVt to USA ( with Raferarien and Chirak ) the risk so that "they are exploded" ( french expression : se faire exploser ") is too great, notice that would not be useless, but the bad grass is always difficult a to mow .
And to quit a UE , no no , you don't know , the France recover the billions and billions of dollars to Ue Subvention is great swindle.
the French socialist republic needs its rounds to pay the GVT
because the salairs is increased to 70 per cent when this Gvt entered in functions.
Posted by:
fred |
October 11, 2003 05:59 PM
I could fix your economy in a week . Would only have to change one rule to do it.
I'm dissappointed that GW's blog isn't a real blog with moderator and comment section. Ah well I suppose he has to run the company. Not enough talent to fight two wars, rebuild three countries, overhaul four economies, and answer questions on his weblog. I think the Editor in Chief is doing a pretty good job anyhow . And you can't have him inspite of what jkrank says.
désolé
Posted by:
Papertiger |
October 12, 2003 01:40 PM
Papertiger:
No, on second thought, I had to admit that jkrank was right.
I don't want a declination of the original. I want the real deal.
And it would be unfair to exile GWB, anyway.
It's just that if I'm the last leaving France, I have to remember to switch off the lights.
Posted by:
the dissident frogman |
October 12, 2003 01:52 PM
Maybe Chirac could take a page out of the movie "The Mouse that Roared"? Couldn't hurt France to openly declare war on the U.S. There are pretty sweet aid packages as door prizes...
Posted by:
Chrees |
October 13, 2003 05:36 PM
A nation cannot tax its way to growth or job creation, but it can't spend its way there either. W is only half good.
Posted by:
Adam |
October 13, 2003 08:35 PM
Adam: how could he "spend" money he doesn't "tax" exactly?
Posted by:
the dissident frogman |
October 13, 2003 08:37 PM
DF:
One problem I have with GWB is that he has not cut spending along with cutting taxes. How does he do it? The same way we do, only instead of maxing out his credit card, he runs up the national debt by issuing Treasury bonds. We made the same mistake when expanding social services (the Great Society campaign) while the Vietnam War was dragging on. We paid the price in the '70's.
Posted by:
Mitch |
October 13, 2003 09:02 PM
Mitch: That's interesting, I didn't know that.
Could it be said that it's a global politic of his - for instance, are all public spends going "on credit", so to speak, or is it limited to certain sectors? (and in that case, which ones?)
Also, it does sound incoherent to cut the income and max out the spending, of course, yet being anything but an expert in this field, I'm wondering: could this move be justified by some obscure (well, at least for me) and surely paradoxical economic theory?
I mean, at least on the French side, everything is clear and simple: public spending is going over the top (and blasting the EU's "stability pact") and taxes are following (I'm not buying ChIraq's alms on the income taxes as "tax cuts". It's a joke, not an abatement.)
Posted by:
the dissident frogman |
October 13, 2003 09:22 PM
DF,
"Adam: how could he "spend" money he doesn't "tax" exactly?"
'Deficit Spending' is the answer to your last question. :-<
Posted by:
Ernest Brown |
October 14, 2003 12:37 AM
Thanks Ernest. (looking forward to see you blogging back... the same, by the way)
So, all partisan considerations put aside, how does this fit in the economic model? I mean, what's the strategy, if there is any?
Posted by:
the dissident frogman |
October 14, 2003 01:05 AM
Not only has Bush not cut spending along with cutting taxes, he's actually increased spending *a lot*, so the taxes will just be paid by future taxpayers rather than current ones. Sure there are economic theories which justify this (some kind of Keynesianism or something), but even if you accept those theories, this is still a bit much. Most likely it's just playing politics; the voters like tax cuts and also their pet programs, so Bush gives them both. This also makes it more difficult for the next Democrat (whoever and whenever) to spend a large deficit. Bush won't be president anymore when the sh*t hits the fan anyway.
By the way, DF, great blog. It also helps me practice my French. :-)
Posted by:
Adam |
October 14, 2003 02:27 AM
yes, that is correct, spending has greatly increased. however, one should observe that when "homeland defense" and a war time increase in the defense budget is subtracted, the resulting increase for the rest of government is just 2 percent. that is the lowest rate of increase in decades. because of the recession, which has ended, tax revenues have been much lower. the bush administration has vigorously pushed a policy of economic growth to get things in better balance. the tax package is just a part. much of this policy has been fiercely resisted by the Democrats.
also note that the portion of the GDP devoted to defense is only 3.2 per cent. the admisnistration has resisted, some would say foolishly, increasing defense spending due to this deficit problem. for those not informed, 3.2 is a very small figure everywhere but in europe. during the cold war, 6.5 to 9.0 was the rule. as far as i know, britain was the only free european country that ever raised its defense spending to the 3.2 level during that period. we always tried to get germany to give 3.0 per cent but it never happened. another demonstration that europe rarely pulls its own weight in these matters. oh, i forgot, turkey spends 10 percent and i think the greeks spend a lot, but, of course, greece is given a free economic ride by the EU, but the europeans with bouzikis are another story.
Posted by:
j a pate |
October 14, 2003 08:28 AM
Thanks j a pate, I was suspecting something along that line, particularly since one of my readers sent me an email pointing at the defense issue.
I just needed it be said in the comments I guess. ;-)
Posted by:
the dissident frogman |
October 14, 2003 08:44 AM
Fred:
We already understand your government very well. So do the citizens of France, and they are eternally aggrieved. The euro apparatus only works as long as there is a US, an eager Eastern Europe, and a productive Asia to buoy it, give it a market for its' rubbish, and nod while it insists that it always knows how the rest of humanity should live.
Look - no-one listens to them, and things go well. They only seem able to impose their will over African states that are already on their knees with poverty caused by closed European markets and manipulation by European state industries.
The world realizes that ever so brilliant euro-chatter is little more than an expression of narcissism.
Posted by:
Joe |
October 14, 2003 01:54 PM
Hi again, DF
Despite my qualms, there is some justification for Bush's spending. As j a pate points out, this is wartime and the first responsibility of any government is victory. There is a big bill coming due for Iraq's reconstruction, but failing to complete it would amount to failing to consolidate the partial victory.
Reagan tried the same thing during a period of economic "malaise," which really resulted from 3 previous administrations' failure to address the hangover from the '60's. It was called "starving the beast," whereby he insisted on tax cuts and dared the opposition to keep spending. Eventually, spending tailed off and the economy grew out of the deficit. Bush is much more attuned to Reagan than to his father, both in economics and in ideology. We have a new "Evil Empire" to resist and eventually demolish.
BTW, the design and operation of your blog is outstanding. I took a look at the "view source" option to see how it is done, but I cannot reproduce the effects on Blogger. The only suggestion I could possibly make is to employ a JavaScript to hide your e-mail from the spammers' bots. That is, unless you wish to receive e-mail regarding the molestation of various animals, offers to increase the size of your penis or your breasts (to do both at once would, I think, add a certain amount of variety to your social life).
Keep up the good work, mec.
Posted by:
Mitch |
October 14, 2003 03:56 PM
I don't like the idea of deficit spending , but I remember Sgt. Shroeder from my company. He borrowed money from everybody in the unit. His theory being when we went to war , everyone would be looking out for Shroeder to insure we got paid back. Same principal keeps Donald Trump solvent. He borrowed more money then the banks could write off , in effect they are business partners now.
Posted by:
Papertiger |
October 14, 2003 07:55 PM
This Schroder person sounds very shrewd, but I think you only see half of the idea- anyone who got killed before they were paid back was unlikely to collect on the debt.
Posted by:
rosignol |
October 25, 2003 06:19 AM
