The France, Greece, and Russia presidential elections have produced some shocking results this week that could impact their part of the world in adverse ways in the days ahead—and possibly that of other countries as well, with accusations of voter fraud, a currency crisis, the death to capitalism and term limit increases.
Already some in Russia have demonstrated against the re-election of Vladimir Putin—claiming voter fraud was in play. Stock markets have taken a tumble of 1.7 percent due to Francois Hollande unseating Nicholas Sarkozy in France—and as much as an 8 percent decline has been felt due to Greece making the New Democracy its single biggest party in their country's elections, according to the Guardian.
You know there is trouble coming when the stock market teeters over presidential election results. And it looks like this expected future trouble is mostly about how the new leaders will handle the money of their countries—or the lack thereof.
France ushered in Francois Hollande to help them break the bank so to speak, definitively saying out with the old "tighten-the-belt" Sarkozy mentality, and in with the man they feel will stimulate the economy by dishing out money the country doesn't really have to blow.
But is this just America 2008 in replay when President Obama made promises to right the ills of the economy with an influx of stimulus dollars? And didn't that just put America more in debt? And four years later all they have to show for it is the same poor-performing economy and lackluster job growth?
Hollande thinks spending and taxing are the solutions rather than getting rid of the country's debt, as Sarkozy was trying to do. But you know the country is in trouble when the NY Times reports that Socialist President Hugo Chavez congratulated the new president-elect because Hollande brought about "the structural crisis of capitalism."
Oh dear. Compliments from a dictator don't bode well.
Of course a dictator like Chavez yearns for other countries to be led by dictator-favored socialist economies and not democracies present in capitalistic societies, like America. So of course he is going to be glad to see a fellow socialist take office during presidential elections around the world.
Chavez knows that the only way to lead people down that socialist path of resulting chains and shackles, however, is to first pour out the freebies socialism is known for (or promise to give), such as government controlled healthcare, stimulus monies, etc.
It's nothing more than the old bait and switch advertising method employed in the business sector if people think about it: promise the moon, switch the product given once the buyer commits.
France citizens, like Americans in 2008, grew tired of trying to balance their budget and tighten their belts. They wanted to hear prosperity preaching, and Obama, like Hollande, gave it to them.
This socialist benevolence act of giving the people stimulus monies can often be followed by calls to extend a president's term length capability, to which the gluttonous people often eagerly accept. After all, shouldn't you keep the man in office that is giving you the golden egg?
Russia, for example, has ushered in such a man with Vladimir Putin, who served the country's eight-year term limit years ago, then went on to serve four years as the PM. Now he is back in the presidential office to serve a new six-year term, with the possibility of yet another six-year term in office in 2018, when he comes up for re-election.
France made a similar change, moving from a four-year term to five years.
American presidents have always been limited to a total of two four-year terms, equaling eight years in office, but if Russia has now seen fit to bring back a president for more than eight years of term time, Americans can expect to see a politician try that here next.
The danger of that, of course, is that socialism doesn't work. Sooner or later the people will come to realize life isn't better with the government controlling all their money and choosing what to dish out to them and when. But if they've extended term limits to the men who have enslaved them in this way "business as usual" way, what can they do?
Despite Putin's additional term limit in this presidential election, however, protesters this week claim he shouldn't even be in office due to voter fraud. They claim he didn't win the election free and clear, and he's taken action to silence those critics, detaining more than 120 of them according to the Huffington Post.
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 40
It already has. Nationwide, we use mostly electronic voting machines that even our own General Accounting Office has admitted can be easily tampered with to change vote tallies without detection. All it takes is a screwdriver and about 60 seconds of time behind the curtain. If you look at the second Bush election, the statistics occurring as they did with shifts in numbers led Prof. Steven Freeman (Univ. of Penn) to conclude that the odds of those events occurring by chance was 1 in 660,000. I recall other statistical issues with Hillary Clinton's New Hampshire Primary win a few years ago, and I know there have been issues with many other elections in the last few years.
Probably all elections are "decided" or "rigged" this way. Tell this to the average American and he/she shrugs for 2 seconds and goes back to the fantasy that they are living in a republican (small r) democracy. Probably everyone who reads this will do the same.
You just think it happens more on one side because you primarily (correct me if I'm wrong) media that relies on the right side of the political spectrum for viewer/listenership and caters to that with stories that make the other side look bad.
Maybe it is the use of the term austerity that confuses them, as this is merely another word for responsible spending and budgeting.
I don't think the average taxpayer in France, Greece or even America who is in favor of Obama, Hollande or anyone else claiming spend, spend, spend as the solution actually realizes that government pocketbooks are just like theirs: If you don't have it in the change purse you can't spend it without borrowing it.
And borrowers have to be paid back--sooner or later. You can only borrow from Peter to pay Paul for a limited time before Peter gets wise to your ways.
Obama is borrowing from foreign countries to pay American taxpayers money we don't even have. And, of course, he is doing it to get to be in office. That's nice for him, but it will be heck for whomever replaces him later, when they try to keep the country from being controlled by the country that owns them due to all the debt amassed--like China.
If Americans only realized that is down the road if they don't stop and balance the budget they might think twice about all this. And so would France and Greece.
Another genius heard-from.
"I don't think the average taxpayer in France, Greece or even America who is in favor of Obama, Hollande or anyone else claiming spend, spend, spend as the solution actually realizes that government pocketbooks are just like theirs: If you don't have it in the change purse you can't spend it without borrowing it." It is just common sense, Jane. The main difference in ideology is that government can best stimulate the economy versus entrepreneurial and innovative individuals, who are the ones with the ideas that stimulate the economy and provide jobs.
Government has no money, nor should they; the Private Sector does.
Austerity is not going to provide prosperity overnight, RF, how many years has Greece and France been living beyond their means?
Well, it is quite difficult to believe that borrowing other countries money, to the extent that we do, will lead to good things. How did we get into this mess in the first place? We have had many socialist policies for years and we have been listening to the economists for quite some time. We are in a recession, still. I don't think "austerity" is the solution in that we raise taxes for people who create jobs. I guess we should define austerity. In Greece, it has meant lowering salaries, raising taxes, taking away pensions, etc. I seriously think that the insane amount of money spent by the federal government, with little to no accountability needs to stop.
You must see that the federal government abuses taxpayer money. Isn't it common sense that a strategic system, with controlled spending, used by the states where the money is closer to home and government accountability would help at all?
RF, my feeling that you trust the government is based on your willingness to give them more money, after they have proven themselves quite capable of reckless spending.