Europe, Boring Until it's Not

[BjornP]

The tax is absolutely a socialist thing - it's going straight to the general fund to pay for the bloated government. Socialists always need to increase revenue because they're always buying up votes with gibs....and gibs cost $$$$....

Sure, if you define "Socialist" as "higher taxes", it's Socialist. By that definition, raising taxes for the upkeep of a military force is also Socialism, raising taxes to improve infrastructure is "Socialism"... everything that leads to private money landing in public coffers is "Socialism". Someone will probably point that feudalism was Socialist again..

I prefer not to live in the same absurd "reality" as postmodern SJW's, though. I get that some of you here adopt the "b-b-but THEY are deconstructing the definition of words in a postmodern theater of the absurd, so WE need to do the same or WE'll LOSE!!", feel free to tuck your dicks between your legs and call yourselves women and those who don't accept your perceptions of reality "Socialists" if you like. I'm sure you'll be as succesful, loved and respected as SJW's are...

[Zlaxer]

Lolz - which Social economic form spends more and has a history of bankrupting nations? It’s a concodence right? no one is biying that shit anymore -

[DBTrek]

Taxing fuel to combat “climate change” is environmentalism like taxing soda to fight obesity is healthcare.

You need to look at how a message is being leveraged, by whom, for whom, to understand context. Hitting Wikipedia up with your preconceptions and finding a non-related article to cite isn’t doing anything to improve your understanding.

We agree on the stupidity on the tax. I will try and explain the purpose of my posting that link to you, since you seem to misunderstand my "preconceptions" and why it is, in fact, related to the subject at hand. That I'm using a wikipedia article is for your benefit. I already know that Green Conservativism is a thing, it's common knowledge for me and where I am. I needed a quick overview for your benefit, written in English, so I used wikipedia:

I posted the link to you because you've been describing Macron's fuel tax as "Socialist", which I suspected you only did because you made a mental connection between environmentalism and Socialism and making a show out of how obviously it was so. It isn't, though. It seemed obvious to me that you must be unaware of "green taxes" being something even Conservative governments might enact, otherwise why label Macron's fuel tax "Socialist"?

If the politician creating the tax is not a Socialist, if the plan behind is not to create a Socialist society, then the tax is not Socialist either. I hope you can see the logic. I suggest you take your own (bolded) advice to heart, then. You have been presented with enough evidence that it would be illogical to keep painting his stated and enacted policies as "Socialist".

So you believe Marcon's fuel tax is borne out of Green Conservatism and not the necessity to maintain funding for France's socialist policies and industries? Or to socially engineer the populace to abandon fossil fuel vehicles in favor of government-approved forms of transportation? Am I understanding that correctly?

[Montegriffo]

Taxing fuel to combat “climate change” is environmentalism like taxing soda to fight obesity is healthcare.

You need to look at how a message is being leveraged, by whom, for whom, to understand context. Hitting Wikipedia up with your preconceptions and finding a non-related article to cite isn’t doing anything to improve your understanding.

We agree on the stupidity on the tax. I will try and explain the purpose of my posting that link to you, since you seem to misunderstand my "preconceptions" and why it is, in fact, related to the subject at hand. That I'm using a wikipedia article is for your benefit. I already know that Green Conservativism is a thing, it's common knowledge for me and where I am. I needed a quick overview for your benefit, written in English, so I used wikipedia:

I posted the link to you because you've been describing Macron's fuel tax as "Socialist", which I suspected you only did because you made a mental connection between environmentalism and Socialism and making a show out of how obviously it was so. It isn't, though. It seemed obvious to me that you must be unaware of "green taxes" being something even Conservative governments might enact, otherwise why label Macron's fuel tax "Socialist"?

If the politician creating the tax is not a Socialist, if the plan behind is not to create a Socialist society, then the tax is not Socialist either. I hope you can see the logic. I suggest you take your own (bolded) advice to heart, then. You have been presented with enough evidence that it would be illogical to keep painting his stated and enacted policies as "Socialist".

So you believe Marcon's fuel tax is borne out of Green Conservatism and not the necessity to maintain funding for France's socialist policies and industries? Or to socially engineer the populace to abandon fossil fuel vehicles in favor of government-approved forms of transportation? Am I understanding that correctly?

FFS DB. How many times do you need to be told that Macron has cut welfare programs and plans to cut 120,000 public sector jobs before you admit that this tax has nothing to do with socialism?
The money raised is not going to prop up France's socialist policies. It is being spent on handouts to the rich and tax cuts for business in an attempt to stimulate the economy and balance the budget. The polar opposite of socialist.

Don't believe me? How about Bloomberg, or are they Socialists too?
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... -unpopular

Emmanuel Macron’s second budget as French president will hammer home an economic strategy that’s becoming increasingly unpopular: make work pay, whatever the cost.

His government will on Monday unveil plans for 2019 that include tax cuts for employers and their employees, building on sweeteners granted last year. But to foot the bill and keep the deficit in check, Macron will cap pensions and benefits not linked to work and ax jobs in the public sector.

Tax cuts, benefit caps and public sector jobs axed. MACRON HAS TO BE THE WORST SOCIALIST EVER.

[BjornP]

If the politician creating the tax is not a Socialist, if the plan behind is not to create a Socialist society, then the tax is not Socialist either. I hope you can see the logic. I suggest you take your own (bolded) advice to heart, then. You have been presented with enough evidence that it would be illogical to keep painting his stated and enacted policies as "Socialist".

So you believe Marcon's fuel tax is borne out of Green Conservatism and not the necessity to maintain funding for France's socialist policies and industries? Or to socially engineer the populace to abandon fossil fuel vehicles in favor of government-approved forms of transportation? Am I understanding that correctly?

I think Macron's fuel tax fits better in with Green Liberalism than Green Conservatism. Both Green Liberalism and Green Conservatism is pro-capitalist, though, so it makes no difference in regards to my purpose of showing you that this philosophy existed. I posted the link to Green Conservatism because I figured you'd needed something more right-wing than Liberalism to prove that one can be right-wing and environmentalist. Doesn't help that Conservatism in the US is called Liberalism everywhere else. At figured since the Green Conservatism article had a section about the US, it might make your understanding better of my point better.

France doesn't have any Socialist policies nor... (and are you serious?) industries. A "Socialist policy" is a meaningless term unless applied to a policy intended to usher in an actual Socialist society. If that is not the intent, it is not "Socialist". It can be any number of other things, clever things, stupid things. But just like you can't call a planned economy a "Capitalist" economy, it makes no sense to call a capitalist economy a Socialist one.

Generally, though, I don't think it boils down to Macron subscribing to a single ideology vs some other ideology. It's capitalism, Green Liberalism, pragmatism, globalization, keeping investors happy by lowering costs of labor and decreasing taxes, promoting more centralization which lots of international companies want because only having to deal with ONE agency (the EU, for example), to gain access to market of 500 million consumers, only having to lobby ONE office, is something companies have no problems with - even if national governments might. But Macron also comes across as an idealist, an EU federalist, with a highly top-down approach to governance.

Macron has no need to "socially engineer" the French people to want to abandon fossil fuels, didn't you read the articles posted? The French people, including the protestors, overwhelmingly support abandonding fossil fuels. What they oppose, is the implementation, not the goal. Again, several articles telling as much have been posted here.

[DBTrek]

FFS DB. How many times do you need to be told that Macron has cut welfare programs and plans to cut 120,000 public sector jobs before you admit that this tax has nothing to do with socialism?
The money raised is not going to prop up France's socialist policies. It is being spent on handouts to the rich and tax cuts for business in an attempt to stimulate the economy and balance the budget. The polar opposite of socialist.

FFS Monte, how many times are you going to claim the tax revenue will be spent on the rich and big business with zero citations or corroborating sources outside of your fevered imagination?
My prediction was "forever" and so far it's holding strong.

/shrug

[DBTrek]

Conservatism because I figured you'd needed something more right-wing than Liberalism to prove that one can be right-wing and environmentalist.

The US is full of conservative environmentalists. You never hear about them because we don't spike trees, or chain our nakes asses to coal plant fences though.

France doesn't have any Socialist policies nor... (and are you serious?) industries.

Really?

The nationalizations of 1981-82 involved seven of the largest twenty conglomerate industrial companies in France plus another five industrial companies. Thirty six banks and two finance companies were also nationalized to be sure of the State having capital sources for the nationalized sectors. The twelve industrial conglomerates nationalized (by means of an exchange of National Industrial Fund bonds for shares) were:

Compagnie Générale d'éléctricité (CGE): electrical power construction, electronics, heavy engineering, shipbuilding and telecommunications
Péchiney-Ugine-Kuhlman: aluminum, copper, chemicals, and pharmaceuticals
Rhone-Poulenc: chemicals, fertilizers and pharmaceuticals
Saint-Gobain: glass, building and insulating materials, castings, computers, electronics, and paper
Thomson-Brandt: appliances, electronics and telecommunications
Usinor: iron and steel
Sacilor: iron and steel
Dasault: aeronautical construction and electonics
CII-Honeywell: computers
Compagnie Générale du constructions téléphoniques (CGCT): telephone and telecommunications
Roussel-Uclaf: refined chemicals and pharmaceuticals

http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/socFrance.htm

That list doesn't include insudtries that were already socialized, like Air France, Air Inter, their telecommunications industry, SEITA, etc.

But maybe I'm high, and in Europe mass-nationalizing entire industries isn't part of socialism.
/shrug

[Montegriffo]

FFS DB. How many times do you need to be told that Macron has cut welfare programs and plans to cut 120,000 public sector jobs before you admit that this tax has nothing to do with socialism?
The money raised is not going to prop up France's socialist policies. It is being spent on handouts to the rich and tax cuts for business in an attempt to stimulate the economy and balance the budget. The polar opposite of socialist.

FFS Monte, how many times are you going to claim the tax revenue will be spent on the rich and big business with zero citations or corroborating sources outside of your fevered imagination?
My prediction was "forever" and so far it's holding strong.

/shrug

I just posted a Bloomberg article about the 2019 budget.
Did you even bother to read it or are you just going to hold on to your ignorance like a shipwrecked sailor clinging to a life raft?

[DBTrek]

I just posted a Bloomberg article about the 2019 budget.
Did you even bother to read it or are you just going to hold on to your ignorance like a shipwrecked sailor clinging to a life raft?

Did the 2019 budget say fuel taxes (causing the riots) were going to rich people and big business, or are you still pulling red herrings out and waving them around?

[Fife]

Taxing fuel to combat “climate change” is environmentalism like taxing soda to fight obesity is healthcare.

You need to look at how a message is being leveraged, by whom, for whom, to understand context. Hitting Wikipedia up with your preconceptions and finding a non-related article to cite isn’t doing anything to improve your understanding.

We agree on the stupidity on the tax. I will try and explain the purpose of my posting that link to you, since you seem to misunderstand my "preconceptions" and why it is, in fact, related to the subject at hand. That I'm using a wikipedia article is for your benefit. I already know that Green Conservativism is a thing, it's common knowledge for me and where I am. I needed a quick overview for your benefit, written in English, so I used wikipedia:

I posted the link to you because you've been describing Macron's fuel tax as "Socialist", which I suspected you only did because you made a mental connection between environmentalism and Socialism and making a show out of how obviously it was so. It isn't, though. It seemed obvious to me that you must be unaware of "green taxes" being something even Conservative governments might enact, otherwise why label Macron's fuel tax "Socialist"?

If the politician creating the tax is not a Socialist, if the plan behind is not to create a Socialist society, then the tax is not Socialist either. I hope you can see the logic. I suggest you take your own (bolded) advice to heart, then. You have been presented with enough evidence that it would be illogical to keep painting his stated and enacted policies as "Socialist".

Socialist. Roger that & 10-4.