I assume a global economic award will alongside the Nobel Peace Prize any day now!
 

The French politician who said Indian steel company ArcelorMittal should leave the country has told CNBC that his government is only acting like U.S. President Barack Obama.

Industry Minister Arnaud Montebourg, a member of the governing Socialist party, caused controversy last week when he said that the Indian company, which employs close to 20,000 people in France, should leave after it said it would have to close down a factory.

The French government announced on Thursday that it could nationalize the factory in question, with backing from an unnamed businessman.

The news raised the specter of the nationalizations of the early 1980s, which were instigated by Hollande's predecessor Francois Mitterrand.

Montebourg told CNBC after a meeting with trade unions in Paris: "Barack Obama's nationalized. The Germans are nationalizing. All countries are nationalizing. I've also noticed the British nationalized 6 banks."

it's gets better, the furnaces were being shuttered because they're not viable, the French Government would nationalize them simply to protect union jobs


The European steel industry is struggling with overcapacity at a time of recession in the euro area and cheap competition in emerging markets.

"Florange, located in France's former industrial heartland, has become symbolic of the country's long industrial decline and a test case for whether Socialist President Francois Hollande can make good on a vow to reverse a relentless surge in unemployment.

ArcelorMittal said earlier this year the Florange site's two furnaces were not viable, but Hollande insisted they should be kept open and threatened a temporary state takeover of the site while the government sought a permanent buyer."

Why anyone would want to keep a strategic industry operating is beyond me.

-spence

that should read "taxpayers pay high price" I think...:uhuh:

probably has something to do with the "not viable" thing :uhuh:

I didn't write it. More thievery

Spence, in anoher thread which you are hiding from, you mentioned that the GOP clearly isn't interested in the best interests of our country. So Spence, since Obama's only financial proposal calls for billions in tax hikes, no spending cuts, INCREASED spending in the form of another stimulus, and unilateral power to Obama to raise the debt ceiling (who cares about checks and balances, anyway)...please Spence, enlighten me, tell me how Obama's proposal represents our best interests?

Good luck.

Progressives not only don't care about checks and balances, they absolutely see them as an impediment to good governance. As Woodrow Wilson said in his essay WHAT IS PROGRESS:

"The Constitution was founded on the law of gravitation. The government was to exist and move by virtue of the efficacy of 'checks and balances.' The trouble with the theory is that government is not a machine, but a living thing . . . It is modified by its environment, necessitated by its tasks, shaped to its functions by the sheer pressure of life. No living thing can have its organs offset against each other as checks and live."

They have managed to create a more unitary, centralized, form of government over the years from Wilson, especially FDR, LBJ, and now Obama, with all the lesser progressives of both parties in between. Even the SCOTUS has been brought into the sphere of one centralized government. The FDR court in 1938 introduced the idea of different levels of scrutiny to apply to the cases brought before it: strict scrutiny; intermediate scrutiny; and rational basis test (minimal scrutiny). It was not intended, originally for the Court to have this latitude. This, as well as newer methodologies of "interpretation" were introduced over the years and encouraged by progressive law schools so that the Court has not only rubber stamped legislation that once would have been unconstitutional, but it has also become part of the legislative process acting in accord or supplementary to the Congress. You may have noticed the decision on Obamacare? The Constitution is mostly paid lip service, and the Federal Government, rather than three branches that check and balance one another, has become a more unitary system which really has no legal restraints.

Which is all to say that what Obama is doing, according to progressives, is in the best interests of the country, no matter what the costs and by phrasing the argument that the Repubs are for the rich hearkens back to another Wilsonian progressive idea that the wealthy have too much power by which they can control the levers of government. He said in WHAT IS PROGRESS:

"By tyranny, as we now fight it, we mean control of the law, of legislation and adjudication, by organizations which do not represent the people . . . we mean the alliance, for this purpose, of political machines with selfish business."

This message has been pounded into our consciousness over the years by the left so that it has become an obvious truth that individual wealth is a threat to the liberty of the people, and it must be checked, and its "excessive" properties must be redistributed to the rest of us. And the formula that leads to the repetition (if you repeat a lie often enough . . .) was outlined by Wilson in his STUDY OF ADMINISTRATION:

"Whoever would effect a change in modern constitutional government must first educate his fellow-citizens to want SOME change. That done, he must persuade them to want the particular change he wants. He must first make public opinion willing to listen and then to see to it that it listen to the right things. He must stir it up to search for an opinion, and then manage to put the right opinion in its way."

Obama has successfully done that. And however much it costs to transform society in the best interests which the people have been persuaded to want, that cost must somehow be provided, not diminished.

I also look at things through the lens of common sense. And as a result, one of my convictions is that you can't spend more than there is. Spence works in finance (I'm told), so he must also know this. Yet he pretends not to believe that when a Democrat endorses spending more than there is. And that's what I don't get.

Detbuch, this particular argument isn't about political ideology...it's about 5th grade arithmetic. If a kid's lemonade stand has to borrow 20 years' of revenue to make one years' worth of lemonade, then a child knows you don't open up the stand.

It's. That. Simple.

Senator #^&#^&#^&#^& Durbin of Illinois is the #2 ranking Democrat in the senate. This week, he said we don't need to address Social Security in these fiscal talks, since Social Security isn't adding to our deficit.

And my side loses to these people. Sen Durbin practically runs un-opposed. He says things this stupid, and he gets re-elected again and again.

You have to understand the intricacies of their fiscal methods. Which really are not so much fiscal as they are ideological. See the rest of my post for further elucidation. You jumped in before I edited it with further comment.

it's exactly about ideaology, if it were about arithmetic there would be no argument....

Detbuch said ..."Progressives ARE, in their minds, acting responsibly "....so are suicide bombers, rational people will never understand them ....asking why, why, why?...and demanding an answer will never result in a sufficient answer....understanding the history that many Progressives themselves barely seem to know helps in understanding how this Progressive religion has evolved and why the thinking has you so exacerbated, most Progressives have only recently jumped on the bandwagon hypnotized by the rhetoric of their Philosopher Kings and drunk with the perceived power and unseen knowledge created by an adherence to this false logic and inclusion in the cult and have almost no understanding of the movement that they profess to represent...note that their slick talking leaders are in perpetual campaign mode(creating world record carbon footprints) building "faith"among the masses preaching what seems counterintuitive to Americans rooted in the principles and ideals that this country was founded on but to them, this religion is The Way and they smugly carry on day in and day out preaching to their supplicants, have you watched any of the mainstream media "journalism" ?...it's consists of little more than a mindless recitation of administration wish list propoganda on the relevant daily subjects...there is no thought involved.....this helps explain the reason that you get the most detailed and vociferous claims on some subjects, but on other very simple subjects...like math...you get crickets chirping(or even more clever, you are told that you aren't smart enough to understand their little secret :uhuh:)....reciting talking points is not thinking and asking someone who is skilled at reciting talking points but not so skilled at thinking or whose thinking is so clouded by a foreign ideaology or adherence to a religious cause that responses often turn logic on it's head is only an exercise in futility and a source of irritation.....for you :)...............


'We have now an American political party and a European one. Not all Americans who vote for the European party want to become Europeans. But it doesn't matter because that's what they're voting for. They're voting for dependency, for lack of ambition, and for insolvency." -Harvey Mansfield

What's up with that Plate Scott?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I would say that after visiting several mills here in the US which make the same family products, which by the way are shadows of their former selves as a result of global overcapacity, there is plenty of capacity in other allied nations to compensate for the shuttering of inefficient mills..

seeds of the entitlement culture

Ahhhhh
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

hey....we were we aware that a "The 3.8 percent surtax on investment income, meant to help pay for healthcare, goes into effect in 2013." as part of Obamacare?

or was this another nugget that was in the bill that we had to pass in order to find out what was in it?

note the use of the term "surtax"...which by definition is a tax levied on a tax which is imposed to fund Obamacare-a tax...brilliant!...I like this definition- "Surtaxes can be imposed on other taxes. They are usually imposed on the grounds of moral justification; they only affect persons who are already paying taxes rather than extending taxation to new areas or persons who are not previously being taxed." or redistribution



IRS aims to clarify investment income tax under healthcare law

Fri, Nov 30 2012
WASHINGTON | Mon Dec 3, 2012 6:14pm EST

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Internal Revenue Service has released new rules for investment income taxes on capital gains and dividends earned by high-income individuals that passed Congress as part of the 2010 healthcare reform law.

The 3.8 percent surtax on investment income, meant to help pay for healthcare, goes into effect in 2013. It is the first surtax to be applied to capital gains and dividend income.so probably not the last...foot in door theory


The tax affects only individuals with more than $200,000 in modified adjusted gross income (MAGI), and married couples filing jointly with more than $250,000 of MAGI.

The tax applies to a broad range of investment securities ranging from stocks and bonds to commodity securities and specialized derivatives.

The 159 pages of rules spell out when the tax applies to trusts and annuities, as well as to individual securities traders.

Released late on Friday, the new regulations include a 0.9 percent healthcare tax on wages for high-income individuals.

Additional Medicare Tax
A new Additional Medicare Tax goes into effect starting in 2013. The 0.9 percent Additional Medicare Tax applies to an individual’s wages...

almost missed this one too..



if we go off the fiscal cliff, we can sure raise a lot of money after the 1st :uhuh:...which should have us softly landing in a pool full of money and entitlements...right?

Perhaps, but there's also a reason why our government regulates the defense supply chain. We have to look out for ourselves.

-spence