Protests in France

[lamath]

Kudos to the french
The movement is starting to spread, even here in Canada some small manifestation atm about new immigration policies


I wish more people would get together like this, we are getting too often ****ed by politician
There should be a way to remove or push election when a country leader approval rating drops below a certain %

Would make a lot more accountable, what happens people get really piss off at them for something they do and forget about it 2 year later when its election time.
Thats how they get away with it

 

[Ranger]

Weird we hear about the protest but barely anything on the reasons.

It’s just demands that will actually make it worse. Earlier retirement an higher minimum wage.

 

[wifehunter]

Taxation is theft.

The French are sick of getting robbed, as am I.

No surprise.

 

[EyeBRollin]

Blame the globalists, they don’t believe in individual countries and ant type of democracy.

Naw, blame white people for not haing enough children.

 

[EyeBRollin]

The ROI for gov't is simply more tax revenue.

No. Government is not a business. Let’s start there. The point of government us to improve the lives of its citizens.

The problem is that people don't want to hold competing thoughts about government. It's either "capitalist" or "socialist" in policy. Once you accept that every government takes and redistributes, and that capitalism only exists in the free market, then you can accept that two different ideas can both be true. Tax breaks to Amazon can be socialist but still be good for a local economy. So much of the noise and anger in politics is only about HOW (and how much) your government spends your money.

That’s the point of politics. All politics are moral. The government can’t run out of money. Some people just have screwed up ideas on what the government should be spending money on (like more tax breaks for billionaires).

 

[samspade]

No. Government is not a business. Let’s start there. The point of government us to improve the lives of its citizens.




That’s the point of politics. All politics are moral. The government can’t run out of money. Some people just have screwed up ideas on what the government should be spending money on (like more tax breaks for billionaires).

1. Irrelevant that it's not a business. Governments can still invest - they just don't produce. Rather, they take people's money and invest it, just like organized crime.

2. Morality Trap.

3. A government can easily run out of money if it overburdens its constituents or if they fail to produce sufficiently.

4. "Screwed up ideas" are a matter of opinion, but it supports my point that all governments take and redistribute, no matter how capitalist people think they may be.

 

[EyeBRollin]

1. Irrelevant that it's not a business. Governments can still invest - they just don't produce. Rather, they take people's money and invest it, just like organized crime.

That’s a BS comparison. What did you drive on to get to work? Did you go to public school? Who regulates your air, food and water?

2. Morality Trap.

All politics are moral. Explain what is not true about this statement.

3. A government can easily run out of money if it overburdens its constituents or if they fail to produce sufficiently.

Nope, Governments have no financial constraints because they have sovereign rights over their own currency. This false narrative your pushing again ties into how politics being moral (“overburden” and “produce” are subjective.)

4. "Screwed up ideas" are a matter of opinion, but it supports my point that all governments take and redistribute, no matter how capitalist people think they may be.

Correct, it is my point of view that a country that gives tax breaks to billionaires but refuses to cover health insurance for its citizens has a ****ed up moral compass.

 

[AttackFormation]

That’s a BS comparison. What did you drive on to get to work? Did you go to public school? Who regulates your air, food and water?



All politics are moral. Explain what is not true about this statement.



Nope, Governments have no financial constraints because they have sovereign rights over their own currency. This false narrative your pushing again ties into how politics being moral (“overburden” and “produce” are subjective.)



Correct, it is my point of view that a country that gives tax breaks to billionaires but refuses to cover health insurance for its citizens has a ****ed up moral compass.

I don't know if you may also be European or just a progressive American, but I don't think it's worth one's time to argue with the minority of true believer right wing Americans. The indoctrination their neoliberal academic, big business, and banker conglomerate has subjected them to and molded their perception of reality with, like the USSR did to its population, is just too effectively imprinted. They're not really looking to question and discuss, just validate their beliefs about socioeconomics and of their government plotting to destroy America with "marxism/communism/socialism".

 

[samspade]

That’s a BS comparison. What did you drive on to get to work? Did you go to public school? Who regulates your air, food and water?



All politics are moral. Explain what is not true about this statement.



Nope, Governments have no financial constraints because they have sovereign rights over their own currency. This false narrative your pushing again ties into how politics being moral (“overburden” and “produce” are subjective.)



Correct, it is my point of view that a country that gives tax breaks to billionaires but refuses to cover health insurance for its citizens has a ****ed up moral compass.

1. It's an accurate comparison. If you don't believe me, try not paying your taxes for a few years and see where you end up.

2. It's neither true nor untrue; you offered an opinion, but you're in the Morality Trap.

3. Incorrect. Currency is worthless without goods and services. Thought experiment: The USA gets nuked and everyone dies except one government official safe in his bunker. He goes to the US Mint and prints one billion dollars for himself. Does his unconstrained "sovereignty" over currency make him a wealthy man?

Without wealth produced by the people, the government has no tax base. Simply putting its name on money does not give the government wealth.

@AttackFormation , I'm not political, I don't vote, and I'm not saying one side or the other is right or wrong. In fact I'm living in Spain where there's a pretty large public sector and it seems to work just fine for me. There's nothing wrong with everyone chipping in for the public good if it's done effectively. I'm just stating my observations on governments in general and how they operate. In fact I'm fine with the health care system where I live, just like a lot of Americans are okay with their government paying money for a huge military. Both are "socialist." It doesn't matter to me what you call it - in fact I jumped in to point out that even the most "capitalist" governments still take and redistribute. Tax breaks for Amazon isn't technically "redistribution" but it is social engineering to attract business, which shouldn't be necessary but that's my opinion. If it works, it works.

 

[EyeBRollin]

I don't know if you may also be European or just a progressive American, but I don't think it's worth one's time to argue with the minority of true believer right wing Americans. The indoctrination their neoliberal academic, big business, and banker conglomerate has subjected them to and molded their perception of reality with, like the USSR did to its population, is just too effectively imprinted. They're not really looking to question and discuss, just validate their beliefs about socioeconomics and of their government plotting to destroy America with "marxism/communism/socialism".

I’m considered a “progressive American” yet I’m hardly ideological. Believing in science, human rights, and that the government can be more useful than corporations on certain issues apparently means I’m a left wing extremist.

 

[EyeBRollin]

1. It's an accurate comparison. If you don't believe me, try not paying your taxes for a few years and see where you end up.

How would citizens being allowed to evade taxes benefit society?

2. It's neither true nor untrue; you offered an opinion, but you're in the Morality Trap.

Politics being moral is not an opinion.

3. Incorrect. Currency is worthless without goods and services. Thought experiment: The USA gets nuked and everyone dies except one government official safe in his bunker. He goes to the US Mint and prints one billion dollars for himself. Does his unconstrained "sovereignty" over currency make him a wealthy man?

Without wealth produced by the people, the government has no tax base. Simply putting its name on money does not give the government wealth.

The worth / wealth of a currency has nothing to do with the ability to issue it. You’re barking up the strawman tree here. The U.S. can print $100 trillion tomorrow and it has zero effect on its ability to issue more currency to “pay its bills.” Currency is backed by a nations credibility “full faith and credit” which is mostly a function of political stability.

Thought exercise for you. Go dig out a game of Monopoly and recite from the rules what the banker is to do when the bank runs out of cash.

I'm not political, I don't vote, and I'm not saying one side or the other is right or wrong. In fact I'm living in Spain where there's a pretty large public sector and it seems to work just fine for me. There's nothing wrong with everyone chipping in for the public good if it's done effectively. I'm just stating my observations on governments in general and how they operate. In fact I'm fine with the health care system where I live, just like a lot of Americans are okay with their government paying money for a huge military. Both are "socialist." It doesn't matter to me what you call it - in fact I jumped in to point out that even the most "capitalist" governments still take and redistribute. Tax breaks for Amazon isn't technically "redistribution" but it is social engineering to attract business, which shouldn't be necessary but that's my opinion. If it works, it works.

You’re not fooling anyone. You’ve repeated so many right wing talking points it’s not credible for you to claim otherwise.

 

[EyeBRollin]

Your belief in human rights is suspect. You believe people have a right to something provided by someone else.

What about the human rights of the person who's property you advocate stealing?

I believe health care is a human right. You believe that health care is a product. In your worldview, if the sick can’t afford it they should just die.

 

[EyeBRollin]

Here is a critical thought experiment for you.

How does the value of something change relative to how much of it exists?

Yes, the ability issue or create something has a DIRECT impact on it's value.

Go look up Zimbabwe.

Value has absolutely nothing to do with ability to issue currency. What aren’t you understanding?

 

[lamath]

Was talking with some friend about the fact that a man with a 25year older women got some mental health/judgement issue.
They told me but she is good looking, wtf good looking, that guy could be hitting some 24 yo

Macron's Wife for reference dont let the face lift trick you look at that wrinkle arm.


Sarkozy was much better when current wife got old he upgraded

 

[EyeBRollin]

Value is directly related to quantity. Quantity is directly related to ability to adjust the quantity.

Critical thinking.....

We’re talking about two completely different things, so I’ll reiterate the original point. The US Government cannot ever run out of money. It is the sole legal issuer of US denominated currency. Value has nothing to do with this indisputable fact.

Now, run along and play monopoly. Recite the rules for the banker that runs out of money.

 

[lamath]

I believe nobody has the right to demand something of someone else, that is slavery.

Your not-so-well-thought-out belief is that I am saying they should just die.

Perhaps you should think about it more before deciding what I think.

That slavery thing is bit ironic when you think on how much some people are exploited by some big corp.

But i see that in a country that is overtaxing its people the government cant be trusted to handle those tx in a efficient way

So we prob end up paying inderiectly 2x the cost in taxes then private healthcare system

Howver im very happy we have free healthcare here in Canada, we prob dont have the same view on that since ive lived all my life with free healthcare.

 

[EyeBRollin]

I believe nobody has the right to demand something of someone else, that is slavery.

Your not-so-well-thought-out belief is that I am saying they should just die.

Perhaps you should think about it more before deciding what I think.

I don’t have to assume anything. Explain what people should do if they cannot afford private health insurance. Be specific.

 

[EyeBRollin]

Value has everything to do with issuance of a currency backed by nothing, or intangibles.

If you want to pretend the world runs on kids games, all power to you.

Currency is not required to be backed by anything. I’ll ask again, what does the banker in monopoly do when the bank is out of money?

 

[EyeBRollin]

Instead of asking what people should do for healthcare, perhaps we should ask why it was not a problem before insurance inserted themselves between the Doctor and the patient.

Danger is changing the subject because he can’t answer the question. What should people who can’t afford health insurance do when they get sick?

 

[EyeBRollin]

If you want it to keep its value, it needs to be backed.

You only prove that we are running on monopoly money.

Value is irrelevant to ability to issue currency. Yes, we do run on monopoly money! Now, what does the rule say when the bank is out of money?