France’s role in Afghanistan to change
I love France, it’s a beautiful country with wonderful food, lots of historical sights to visit, but the only problem I have with it is that France is full of French people. And they lived up my expectations yesterday when they elected a Socialist, Francois Hollande to be President, replacing their relatively conservative President Nicolas Sarkozy. The French committed to join us in the war against terror in Afghanistan, but even Sarkozy was withdrawing from Afghanistan a year earlier than he had agreed (the end of next year).
Hollande promised during the campaign to withdraw France’s 3,308 troops by the end of this year, according to Stars & Stripes;
“I will not comment on any possible decisions that the very newly elected French government might take in the future,” German Brig. Gen. Carsten Jacobson, a spokesman for the U.S.-led coalition in Afghanistan, said at a news conference Monday. “But France has committed itself very clearly in one of the first strategic partnership agreements with Afghanistan to a long-term commitment way beyond 2014.”
Funny to see the words “France” and “committed” being used in the same sentence without a mention of three month vacations and 30-hour work weeks, doesn’t it? The French are already fighting the war against terror in their streets, a war that followed them back from Afghanistan, so I guess they’re comfortable with that.
When I was in Paris, the tour guide told us that there were ten bombs going off every day in Paris. I have no evidence to confirm that, but I know that we had to go through metal detectors and hand searches to get into a Parisian department store, so I don’t doubt it. If that’s the kind of life they enjoy, more power to them.
Category: Foreign Policy, Terror War
Joe – Just so you can move on in your education of Dr. Laffer’s theories (another Ph.D. economist who doesn’t agree with you).
OWB: I would argue that both a consumption (sales) tax and a flat income tax are equally fair – provided that each is applied across the board without exception. However, a consumption (sales) tax also has the benefit of encouraging savings; a flat income tax does not.
The only reason I’m not overly enamored with the idea of a national consumption (sales) tax is the fact that I’m afraid we’d end up with one on top of the existing income tax rather in lieu of same. We then end up stuck with both in perpetuity. Changing to a flat income tax avoids that potential pitfall.
@#99, ““Redistributing the wealth” is just as nebulous and fuzzy a concept as “fair”. Very subjective and squishy“=I can’t refute anything that’s been said by anyone so far. Way to go Joey, you never fail to measure down.
And, I think that your guy has very clear ideas on how to “redistribute the wealth”.
Bingo, UpNorth. There’s nothing nebulous about the concept of wealth redistribution. Simply put, its the process of taking property from those who earned it through their own efforts so that it can be given to those who did not. It’s been quite well understood since the days of Robin Hood. And it’s embodied in the famous Marx quote, “From each according to his ability; to each according to his need.”
One can argue the merits of the process, and whether or now it’s ever justified – and if so, when. But saying the concept is “nebulous” is bullshit of the first order.
Hondo: I agree with your assessment of the potential for enhanced tax abuse. In the “what I’d like to see, and expect it to be instituted fairly” category my default position was with a flat tax until I understood (it took a while!) that there would remain many ways to hide or understate income. The consumption tax would hit every hooker, drug dealer, and foreign visitor to Disneyland, not just the honest among us.