Star Trek

http://worldnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/05/06/11565997-french-president-sarkozy-admits-defeat-in-presidential-bid

French President Nicolas Sarkozy has conceded defeat in France's presidential elections, saying he called challenger Francois Hollande to wish him "good luck" as the country's new leader.

Sarkozy thanked his supporters Sunday and said he did his best to win a second term, despite widespread anger at his handling of the economy.

He said "I take responsibility ... for the defeat."

Sarkozy faced voters' anger over austerity Sunday in a presidential run-off expected to replace him with Socialist rival Francois Hollande, with far-reaching consequences for efforts to fight Europe's debt crisis.

The election outcome could also have an impact on how long French troops stay in Afghanistan and how France exercises its military and diplomatic muscle around the world.

Hollande campaign official Francois Kalfon was enthusiastic well before voting stations closed. He predicted a big victory party Sunday night on the Place de la Bastille, the iconic plaza associated with the French Revolution.

"There are reasonable reasons to think that there will be a new president after the election tonight," Kalfon said. He said his confidence was based on polls conducted before voting day.

Six European countries were holding elections for various levels of government Sunday.

Aside from France, they include Greece, where the results of a parliamentary vote are seen as critical to the country's prospects for pulling out of a deep financial crisis felt in world markets. A state election in Germany and local elections in Italy were seen as tests of support for the national government's policies. Serbia and Armenia also were holding elections.

...

Asked Friday what he would do if he loses, Sarkozy said simply: "There will be a handover of power."

"The nation follows its course," he continued. "The nation is stronger than the destiny of the men who serve it."

The outcome of the French presidential vote could weigh heavily on talks about the European debt crisis.

Hollande has promised more government spending and higher taxes — including a 75-percent income tax on the rich — and wants to re-negotiate a European treaty on trimming budgets to avoid more debt crises of the kind facing Greece. That would complicate relations with Germany's Angela Merkel, who championed the treaty alongside Sarkozy.

Under Sarkozy, France pledged to rein in its spending while the rest of 17 countries that use the euro embark on a strict period of belt-tightening. In France, that has included programs designed to reduce government employment.

It was obvious a socialist would win, of the 10 candidates in the first round only one would called right-wing in any other country - Nicolas Dupont-Aignan. And even he used anti-free market rhetoric during the campaign. In the end he got less than 2% of the vote finishing 7th.

So nothing will change in France. Hollande, like Sarkozy, is anti-free market and pro-EU. Both men went into the final round of the election wanting a huge bail-out fund to save the euro, pan European taxes, preferably on the rich, (whoever they are) and a crackdown on the markets.

Well, one thing I find interesting is the idea of a 75% income tax on the rich, which one pundit here on this side of the pond indicated works out to more like a marginal tax rate of 90%.  A 75% rate is about 30% higher than I would advocate, but then the U.S. is notorious for having one of the lowest tax rates in the developed world. So a 45% tax rate on the rich here is a far more provocative idea than a 75% rate in France.

Of course, that was a campaign promise, so it will be interesting to see if Hollande actually manages to pull it off.  If he does, that will give France room to manuever and try to actually use government resources to stimulate the economy as opposed to imposing more austerity measures. That would ease some pressure on the United States as being the sole engine trying to work the world economy out of a recession.

Opponents of that idea here in the U.S. will argue that the rich will simply leave France en masse. I am sure some migration of wealth and the wealthy will result. So this could all in theory backlash against Hollande. I am rooting for it to work. The unemployment rate here in the U.S. is simply to high to revert to austerity measures. Such a course of action would just result in our economy spiraling downward.

As I understand it, we have had a net increase in private sector jobs since Obama was elected. Unfortunately, a large drop in public sector jobs has created significant headwinds to fight against. Austerity here would mean even fewer jobs, and I am talking about jobs like firemen and teachers, not food stamps, Temporay Assistance to Needy Families, or unemployment benefits.

And in a move to help harm their country even more..... Hollande lowers the retirement age to 60...  in the name of "social justice", of course....

How fast will they become Greece?  Spain?

The problem with entitlement societies is that eventually the people recieving outnumber the people who work and pay everyone else's way.

France is going to go downhill and I can't say I feel sorry for them. Why should I, we're likely going to be facing the same problem soon and I'm not at all confident the American electorate will wise up.

No, the problem isn't age. Welfare, food stamps, and unemployment all can go to younger people. There are people who will just collect a handout if it's given. Enough for pollitical parties to campaign on entitlement for votes.

That sort of system cannot sustain itself indefinitely. Social Security, I've already just accepted the fact that I'll never see a penny from it once I'm old enough. Heck, I'm not even sure my parents will. As for the government funded retirements for Federal employees, I don't see why the taxpayer has to pay for those. They can put their retirement money into a fund like everyone else.

Oh, rubbish. That's not what socialists want, that's what politicians want. And by "politicians," I mean of both the liberal and the conservative varieties. The problem is not with the entitlement programs themselves, but how those in power will use them to attain their own goals. Some will extend benefits to ridiculous extremes in order to cultivate an attitude of blind faith in those who obtain these benefits, while other will support propositions that will make abuse easier just so they can point their fingers at the abuse and claim that they were right in the first place.

Entitlements are there for those who need it. Not those who merely want it. Unfortunately, those programs will not be fixed while we have the two-headed monster in power.

Ooooh I forgot about this thread...

His promise is a tax of 75% on people earning more than a million. And how many people earn a million per year? Even most millionaires don't earn that much. So he'll do it. And almost no-one notice. Except French footballers who'll move to England so they'll only pay 45%.

Sadly ,  Capitalism is always central to Socialist Dogma ! Where I live , if you earn more than a Million Dollars a year , 90-98% of it goes in Tax ! On top of that there are many Corporate Company Taxes , as well ! Lower the Tax Rate on the Rich , and Everybody will be Happier !

I also propose old age pension for those over 40 , so we can get on with going to Conventions , renovate our homes  , collect  Star Trek Models , and chase Geeky Girls , in our spare time ! 

"Mr. Fleet Admiral Bam Bam ah lock yer thankin. You should jon ma mileesha so we can protec our country from the commie gubment we have in this here land."

Just be sure your "mileesha" is well regulated.  We wouldn't want Bam Bam to do anything unConstitutional.

The anti-government dogma has really gone way too far. It was one thing in the good old days when Ronald Reagan decried waste, fraud and abuse. Now Romeny is insisting that the results in Wisconsin mean that the voters want to cut government. The difference being that Romney is quite explicict about what type of government employees we should do without - police, firefighters and teachers. That is right - the derugulated friends and co-conspirators at Wall Street inflate and then burst an economic bubble. So who is to pay for the resulting decline in State and local revenue? - why relatively altruistic government workers like police, firefighters and teachers. By extension, of course, we are all expected to put up with the decline in public services resulting from these layoffs. To object to this turn of events is to be labeled socialist.

Of course when students fail due to a horrid teacher to student ratios, turn to crime that overwhelms the depleted ranks of our police force, Romney and friends will no doubt be whining about how they should take "personal" responsibility even as they terrorize neighborhoods throughout the land. If more people die due to lack of prompt availability of Emergency Response Technicians or to the lack of fire men to rescue them from burning buildings and respond to other emergencies such as floods or hurricane, why that is just the cost of freedom. To suggest other wise is to be regarded as a socialist.

All of this so that the super rich can continue their exploitation of the rest of us unhampered by taxes that that they can easily afford. Even as the economy plunges further and further into recession due to widespread austerity measures. This version of the future that Romeny and cohorts are selling needs to be firmly rejected in the worst sort of way.