France is threatening G20 walkout

[Barack_America]

Source: BBC News

France will walk away from this week's G20 summit if its demands for stricter financial regulation are not met, the finance minister has told the BBC.

Christine Lagarde told HardTalk that President Sarkozy would not sign any agreement if he felt "the deliverables are not there".

Strengthening financial regulation will be one of the key issues at the G20.

France wants a stronger global financial regulator than the US and the UK would like.

Read more: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7974190.stm

---

Related story:

Sarkozy to fight for regulation at G20
Link

[pleah]

1. K&R

[SpiralHawk]

2. "We want deliverables." - Le French

[loudsue]

40. So do I! It's about time somebody tried to show some leadership in this mess.

:applause: Leave it to the French!

:kick:

[Joe Chi Minh]

3. Surely, the G20 summit should be held in Canada. If it were to be held in the

remotest of locations (Does part of the Arctic Circle come within its borders?), it would save those enormous sums being outlayed on security, too.

And wouldn't "G20 Base Camp" be a more apt title?

[dipsydoodle]

6. Quite right

An estimated 500 people will make up Mr Obama’s entourage, including 200 secret service agents, as well as policy makers and support staff.
>
Cargo planes, such as C-17s, will carry all the transportation Mr Obama needs while in Europe. An estimated 35 vehicles, including cars and helicopters, will be brought to the UK for the presidential visit.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financetopics/g20-summit/5080893/US-President-Barack-Obama-UK-visit-follows-weeks-of-meticulous-planning.html

[moggie]

24. Imagine the carbon footprint! n/t

[dipsydoodle]

28. I find it unbelievable.

Even Shrub didn't have that much kit. I should've realised he'd be 'coptered into London - I have visions of him driving down the M11 and in though the East End.....lol. He's staying in Regents Park and I expect the traffic on Marylebone / Euston Road to become almost tragic when he goes there for the night. As far as beeb news is concerned he doesn't seem to exist. :shrug:

[moggie]

60. There go my plans

I was intending to walk to work through Regents Park the rest of the week, but not if it means being trailed by helicopter gunships.

[dipsydoodle]

64. Just wait until

you see the steel barricades by the roadside on the outer circle on the news. They are over a foot thick - solid steel

What made me laugh is that the President of Mexico got a State Dinner and Obama has to settle for Tea with the Queen.....lol

[Beacool]

48. What a waste of money!!!!!!

200 SS agents, 35 vehicles flown in including helicopters?????????


Yeah, I see that not all of us are asked to sacrifice..........

:crazy:

[dionysus]

55. now Bea, the president needs the security.

your binkie maam
:hi:

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

57. I get the feeling that if somebody else were president 200 secret service agents wouldn't be enough

for some people.

[dipsydoodle]

76. Ironically

Bush had less. It's tragic farce here anyway.

When the Queen is out and about both here and abroad she uses a few police motor cyclists, aka Black Rats here, as outriders and that's it.

Before anyone trys to tell me that Obama is more popular worldwide than the Queen best put you brain in gear and add up the totol population of the Commonwealth.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

78. I wasn't talking about bush. nt

[Beacool]

61. Binkie is back!!!

:woohoo:

BTW, don't think that I haven't noticed that it's a different Binkie. You can't fool me......

;-)

As for Obama, it seems like the entourage of a king of yore. I mean, a food tester????

Security is one thing, excess is another.

:-(

[dionysus]

63. i think i linked too many times to the other binkie... they took it down

:hi:

[Beacool]

65. I see............

:pals:

[Joe Chi Minh]

67. Love the sig. line!

[saigon68]

77. Good thing all the "Old People" have all their medicine now

<sarcasm>

They are spending money on this Presidency like Bernie Madoff

[willing dwarf]

4. I think the French are right

we need better regulation! The deregulation is what got us into this mess.

All I can figure is that the US govt is owned by the banks and Wall Street ( to the degree it's not owned by China and Arab states of course). Our new president is trying to work in a very tight corner, pushing for change, while needing to cave in to the powers that control everything in Washington.

He should be promoting regulation. What is he thinking if he won't??

Everything I've read says that the Great Depression was severely extended because world leaders wouldn't work together to find solutions. Looking at the market trends for S&P 500, we are following a very similar trend line. We need to get a grip here. Wake up and change!

[Barack_America]

5. I think I need to know more about what they're asking for.

The second article reports that Sarkozy has Merkel's support, which seems odd to me.

If France merely seeks to better stabilize the global economy, that's one thing, but if they're using the financial crisis to try to elevate the position of the EU within the global economy, that's another.

Sarkozy is calling for better "regulation", but that might not be what he really wants, if you know what I mean.

[willing dwarf]

9. Well the US and UK certainly did the same to elevate their position in world economy

In the name of a world economy, world markets have been plundered to support the unreal life-style of 1st world people. The only way to instill any confidence and make this confidence game viable again would be to create and enforce real regulation.

[tocqueville]

10. why this unnecessary inuendo ?

1) France and Germany have always been agreeing that the "solution" goes through investment and regulation, not by billions of virtual money into "stimuluses". The necessary bailouts have been done to avert collapses as emergency measures to avoid a further deterioriation of the situation, but it's over. There is nothing "new" or "odd" with that, read the European press. Gordon Brown has a somewhat "in between" position that includes both stimulus and regulation, that's the only difference. BTW Brown seemed to back from that position this morning at a conference at StPaul cathedral and go more towards the Sarkozy-Merkel one.

2) there is a complete misunderstanding about the US "leadership" in that story. No matter what Obama asserts for the home opinion, the US has de facto lost it, thanks of years of irresponsability that culminated with the Bush administration. The Eastern European countries that were "pro-Bush" have made a 180° turn : "we believed in you, not in "Old Europe". But your neocon system screwed us, Brussels is not so bad when it comes around". What Obama can hope is in the best case to regain it (leadership). But the recent flip-flopping regarding Wall Street, AIG, automakers bailouts etc... doesn't show an ability of going that way so far. And BTW what's wrong with elevating one's level within the world economy, even if it's not the topic or the aim of the conference ? What you are expressing reminds of old American exceptionalism : fuck the world as long it is good for us. Well times have changed, get used to it.

3) regulation means the end of fiscal paradises, unregulated hedge and other funds, outrageous bonuses etc... that it to say everything Wall Street's "ethics" stand for. It means the end of neoconservatism and measures to prevent it to rise again. It means the end of everything what corporate America stands for, which means profit for oneself and not for the nation. It has nothing to do with "socialism" it has to do with the creation of a sustainable global market system. The current system is rotten to the core, you cannot "patch it". One have to put new cards on the table.

so there is no "hidden agenda". Get over the infantile myth of American infallibility, admit your mistakes and find common solutions with partners you treat as equals. that's the onky way. The other one is as Topolanek said "a highway to hell".

[biopowertoday]

16. Yes, Germany and France are against throwing more $$$ at this problem.

[Beacool]

49. Can't say I blame them.

A deficit that will increase to the tune of a trillion dollars per year is nothing to sneeze at.........

:scared:

[Barack_America]

17. Hmm, I think that perhaps I was not clear.

There was some discussion on Morning Joe about Sarkozy asking for the appointment of a "regulator", i.e. some sort of global economy czar. That sounds sketchy to me.

Morning Joe isn't really a reliable source of information, of course, so I've been trying to figure out whether the word "regulator" was ever mentioned, hence my "wanting to learn more" about what Sarkozy is proposing.

However, my opinion still stands that this is not necessarily to the time to try to advance one's position. It's one thing to propose ideas that you truly feel will stabilize the global economy, it's another thing to use the fear and panic of the global economy to achieve something that you want, but may not be beneficial to the economy itself (a la Bush using the fear of 9/11 as a means to attack Iraq).

Also, you said, "And BTW what's wrong with elevating one's level within the world economy, even if it's not the topic or the aim of the conference ?...". Well, that's a two-way street and I happen to be an American and partial to the economic interests of Americans. I don't believe in America screwing over other countries, but I certainly don't support America getting screwed over either. Not to say that's what Sarkozy is proposing, but then again I don't know exactly what he is proposing, hence my decision to "wait and see".

[tocqueville]

38. the point is not in "screwing" eachother

elevating one's economy can be beneficial to both. For example as the WaPo noticed the other day, the US will need to import EU technology to implement some projects (like high-speed trains). But it doesn't mean importing manpower. Even if French enginneers would be needed in the beginning, thet would mean hundred of thousands of jobs for now unemployed Americans, not to talk of local manufacturers (steel, concrete, transport) having a boom.

what Sarkozy is proposing as I named above is not a "great regulator" but transparency of tax heavens, regulation of hedge funds, a new role for the IMF, but most of all that the meeting results in tangible, concrete COMMON measures, not a declaration where everybody smiling agrees to disagree.

[Joe Chi Minh]

68. Somebody posted on here yesterday, either directly or indirectly (via

a link) suggesting the very same: both national regulators and a transnational regulator. The people against the latter have a problem: they have destroyed trust at home and abroad, but are striving to retain the fruits of that trust.

[Barack_America]

70. Or just see a position ripe for corruption. nt

[girl gone mad]

71. Nice summary.

I would add that this is clever politics for Sarkozy.

France has been making noise about their better regulated banking system from the beginning of this crisis. It's important to remember that for decades, up until very recently, America had a significant competitive advantage because our regulatory system was feared and admired around the world. Nobody trusts us now.

[Joe Chi Minh]

80. Ditto regarding your summary.

[dipsydoodle]

7. Me too

n/t

[CoffeeCat]

13. You are spot on...

Everything you said is so true.

We need more regulation. Deregulation--handed to Wall Street by our politicians, who have been bought and paid--is the
reason for our current meltdown.

I'm sure the "powers that be" are lobbying heavily for no regulation. And you're right...what IS Obama thinking if he
goes to the G20 and lobbies for less regulation? He'll look like a complete fool. The world sees what is happening
in the United States. They know that Wall Street has a stranglehold on this country, and on the world.

I often wonder if Obama understood the power and scope of this cabal that has their talons around our democracy--before he
ran for President?

I just can't imagine Obama going onto the world's stage and advocating for the bad behaviors that allowed Wall Street to
cause such havoc and mayhem.

And we are following the Great Depression formula for sure. Most media members squash any suggestion that we are headed
for a Depression. As evidence that we are not in a Depression (or headed for one) they throw out the notion that we don't
have 25 percent unemployment. I looked up the unemployment numbers--and in 1929 and 1930--after the crash--unemployment
hovered around 8 percent. Unemployment steadily rose after 1929, but did not peak at 25 percent until 1932. We
are on the SAME trajectory into a Depression, IMHO. (source: http://www.hyperhistory.com/online_n2/connections_n2/great_depression.html)

[willing dwarf]

25. Thanks ( I think)

It's all so depressing, looking at it. But then, when things are as out of balance you know change is going to come -- and the corrective is generally stormy and destructive. -- I love social order and am terrified at the prospect of the disorder of rough-shod street justice but when people reach a place where they feel powerless they will rise up. When people sense they have nothing to loose, they will bring about change.

With the developed world's dependence on oil we are in a vulnerable position. The flow of capital and debt in the global economy has been manipulated against the very poor for ages, and now that it has been so clearly exposed, the genie is out of the bottle. Interesting times, non?

[AllyCat]

35. If he pushes anything, I think the banks will, uh, revoke his license

[CoffeeCat]

Well, someone needs to tell the banks and...

...the rest of Wall Street to go *uck themselves.

This is a tiny, tiny minority in our country.

Obama does not work for 75 criminal millionaire psychopaths. He works for us.

Damn it.

[AllyCat]

51. Agreed, but we have to put the heat on our reps and the media, then spread the word

among our brothers and sisters so they don't get brainwashed. Americans are still glued to their teevees watching DWTS and American Idol.

[lark]

59. I think he WANTS to work for us.

I think his heart is with us, but the ultra rich financial folks and the m.i.c. have him by the balls. So while his rhetoric is very comforting, his actions are totally at odds with his words when it comes to economics and wars. He demands the auto union revoke their contracts or be forced into bankruptcy, but demands the taxpayers pay the millionaires who broke the world billions of dollars in bonuses and says their bonuses are sacrosanct. He gives billions to AIG to channel the money backdoor to Goldman Sachs so they are paid way over market price for their bad debt and pass the deficit on to us regular folks.

I just wonder how they are making him do this? He seems way smarter than this. Are they threatening his family, does he have some terrible secret that didn't find it's way to the media during the 2 long years he was running? It's a big puzzler.

[CoffeeCat]

62. That's what I wonder as well...

How do these criminals do this? No one has spoken out against them? What do they fear?

With regard to Obama, like you, I am puzzled.

What do they hold over him--that keeps him in check. Obama is about as clean a politician as you can have. He doesn't
cheat on his wife. He's a moral man. I supposed that they could set up anyone--and manufacture a scandal.

LIke you, I believe that Obama wants to work for us. He knows the Constitution and believes in it. He's not happy
with what has happened to our democracy, and he's certainly not going to side with the neocon criminals on both
sides of the aisle. I think that's why Bayh started his little DLC neocon cabal. It can be used to threaten Obama
if he gets too Progressive. That little group will go after him, and position him as a radical leftist--when it
suits their needs.

I can't imagine how Kerry, Kennedy, Kuchinich and some of the other 'good guys' feel about all of this.

I wish they'd let the cat out of the bag. They can't conquer this crime syndicate without the help of the people.

[JDPriestly]

33. Our president can only do what Congress allows him to do.

We do not have a parliamentary system. It's harder for Obama to tell Congress what to do or to speak for Congress.

[harun]

42. Agree, they usually are.

[Deja Q]

50. Or 'wake up and take charge'. Somebody has to be a leader.

[xchrom]

8. i never thought i'd be rooting for sarkozy. nt

[tomm2thumbs]

11. K&R Thanks for posting

should be interesting!!

[iandhr]

12. Thats why they need to attend q

so a compromise can be reached

[snot]

14. Yes I WOULD like fries with that -- FRENCH fries!

[pattmarty]

15. AND SARKOZY'S A FUCKING CONSERVATIVE!!!!!!!!!!

[biopowertoday]

20. I have read that France, in general,

has not had many of the severe problems that other industrialized countries have with this financial crisis. PBS had a good segment on it a bit ago. They are doing something right and we need to at least listen rather than name-call.

[pattmarty]

23. I have been saying for years that we ought to look at Europe................

...........for a number of things that they seemingly do a lot better than us. Education and healthcare just to name two.

[biopowertoday]

27. agreed. yet in

looking at the University system, it seems to be going the American way these last lfew years in terms of standardizing each curriculum. It had to be done it was argued for the transferability across the EU. Yet, in just reading about this--and talking with a some fellows from abroad, they effect has been to lose a lot of each University's uniqueness.

[Fire1]

58. HE'S ALSO CORRECT!!!!

[tjwash]

18. Isn't France the cause of all the worlds economic sufferring right now?

Oh wait no, that's the U.S.

My bad.

Carry on...

[dipsydoodle]

29. Hmmm

:rofl:

The only thing they seem to be guilty of are their letters about which the Vatican constantly complain. :)

[tjwash]

52. Hey...don't mess with the vatican

[BlueJac]

19. Regulation is the key......

Deregulation led mostly by the US and the UK has led to this world wide disaster. Reagan and Thatcher were wrong but their policies are still popular, this nonsense has to stop.

[Summermoondancer]

21. And what precisely will walking out solve?

It will only make them look bullheaded and like they do not want a solution to this global crisis. It isn´t just the US that has a crisis it is the world...This summit is important and no one should walk out or take a break until there is a global solution.

[Wapsie B]

22. Those damn surrender-monkeys are going to bankrupt us!

Oh wait, we did that to ourselves with our worship of deregulation and supply-side economics.

[Mr. Hyde]

26. Doesn't France still owe us money from WW1?

[Raster]

31. You forgot your "sarcasm" tag.

[Mr. Hyde]

34. No, I didn't. they still owe us money for WW2 too.

[Flagg]

37. You know...

bringing up WWII into the argument is not a magic key that will make France stop furthering its interests and that no matter how many times you bring it up.

[Mr. Hyde]

41. Really?

I had no idea.

[tocqueville]

43. how about the money you owe us since 1776 ? with interests ?

this is frigging ridiculous

1) the US contributed with troops during WWI that were of so poor quality that with some exceptions they were used only as reserves. The US troops (under French-British command) saw action only the two last months of the war. They weren't decisive militarily, the war was already won. But the US intervention had a tremendous psychological impact on the ailing monarchies of Central Europe and announced that the world was changing. There was a US war effort yes, but no massive cash flow. At that time the US was only an emerging industrial power.

2) the Marshall help was beneficiary to both the US and Europe. It created a lot of the US afterwar wealth and was partly repayed in one of another way, even if it was not intended from the beginning. Both US and Europe were winners.

"The Organization for European Economic Cooperation took the leading role in allocating funds, and the ECA arranged for the transfer of the goods. The American supplier was paid in dollars, which were credited against the appropriate European Recovery Program funds. The European recipient, however, was not given the goods as a gift, but had to pay for them (though not necessarily at once, on credit etc.) in local currency, which was then deposited by the government in a counterpart fund. This money, in turn, could be used by the ERP countries for further investment projects.

Most of the participating ERP governments were aware from the beginning that they would never have to return the counterpart fund money to the U.S.; it was eventually absorbed into their national budgets and "disappeared." Originally the total American aid to Germany (in contrast to grants given to other countries in Europe) had to be repaid."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_Plan

so only the Germans had to repay and they did it.

your post is exactly the kind of BS founded on totally inaccurate beliefs of America as the "world's savior", specially regarding France. What the US did was in it's own interests that happened to coincide with European ones. Thanks anyway.

then you can wonder when you read the eternal mantra of the US "bailing out" over and over the poor screwed up Europeans probably for sentimental reasons, it creates anti-american sentiment among those that haven't access to real information ?

[Coventina]

47. well played!

:thumbsup:

[Joe Chi Minh]

69. I read that we (the UK) only paid off our war-time and post-war debt

to the US, last year. Or was it the year before?

[Mr. Hyde]

73. Anything owed to you from 1776 was surely paid back by 1918.

And you were certainly owed of course. I'm really only pointing out that sometimes circumstances dictate setting aside certain things that we would rather not set aside. The WW1 debts (which are not figments of my imagination) were set aside because of the great depression for example. What's more, I don't disagree with Sarkozy about increased financial regulation especially in the area of issuing loans but threatening to walk out if his terms aren't met seems counter productive given the nature of this crisis and considering the sacrifices that Americans are making (albeit begrudgingly) in order to keep the global economy afloat.

Having said that, US troops played a decisive role in the second battle of the Marne which resulted in the loss of all German offensive momentum and ultimately ended the war on terms favorable to France and England. I served in the 3rd ID whose motto is still to this day "Rock of the Marne" because of the epic battle they fought in France: http://www.answers.com/topic/second-battle-of-the-marne">"The U.S. 3rd Division, hastily committed against the point of the German drive, stopped the advance, in bloody, hand‐to‐hand fighting, although the Americans were beset on three sides. The German drive continued around the Americans, establishing a sizable bridgehead across the Marne. British divisions from the north arrived and blunted the German offensive, as they and the French reconstituted defenses on the river line, building on the 3rd Division's positions. Through the ranks of the German assault troops ran the rumor, “The Americans are killing everyone.” I'm not gloating or pretending to be the "world's savior" but don't try to suggest that the American role in WW1 was anything but decisive and don't even try to claim that American troops were sub par. We may not have been battle hardened veterans like at the time we entered but we were by the time we left and; what's more, it did not serve our interests nearly as much as it served yours.

[tocqueville]

74. to end that discussion

1) the independence war cost roughly one billion pounds of that time to France, about 30% added deficit to the current deficit. The only compensation France got for it was to regain some territories from the Brits throughout the world at the Versailles treaty. Since the regime changed with the French revolution, I am not aware of any "bill" sent to the US after that. Nothing was repaid and nothing was asked. But you got Louisiana (which at that time stretched from Canada to New Orleans) for peanuts, but that's another story.

2) the war reparations for WWI were about $32 billion (roughly equivalent to $393.6 Billion US Dollars as of 2005). Even if this was astronomical and one of the causes of WWII, this debt was SOLELY a German debt to the Allies. There French or Brit direct financial debt to the US was as followed : "To pay for purchases in the United States, Britain cashed in its massive investments in American railroads and then began borrowing heavily on Wall Street. President Wilson was on the verge of cutting off the loans in late 1916, but allowed a massive increase in U.S. government lending to the Allies. After 1919, the U.S. demanded repayment of these loans, which, in part, were funded by German reparations, which, in turn, were supported by American loans to Germany. This circular system collapsed in 1931 and the loans were never repaid." So to blame the FRench for that one, and only the French is preposterous.

3) I said "with exceptions" (and you name one) and everybody here still honors the memory of the fallen. But my statement is correct :

"The first American troops, who were often called "Doughboys" , first landed in Europe in June 1917. However the AEF did not participate at the front until late October 1917, when the 1st Infantry Division, one of the best-trained divisions of the AEF, entered the trenches near Nancy."

"US Army and Marine Corps troops played a key role in helping stop the German thrust towards Paris, during the Second Battle of the Marne in June 1918 (at Chateau-Thierry and Belleau Wood). The first major and distinctly American offensive was the reduction of the Saint Mihiel salient in September 1918."

quotes from wikipedia

there was too the last offensive (Meuse-Argonne), but the US suffered horrendous casualties despite overpowering the Germans 3 to 1.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meuse-Argonne_offensive.

since the Allies had defeated the German spring offensive 1918, revolution was already rampant in Germany. The following summer and fall German defeats were only the logical consequence. So the US intervention was of course helpful, but to transform it into an overall "rescue" and " bailout" of the French and the Brits is wrong. Isn't the intervention and the price paid for it enough ?

I resented your post because it isn't new

we never hear from the Brits, Canadians, Aussies and others that they "saved our asses" twice. Only from the US. We seldom hear from the US that they saved the Brits asses, even if the US did as much for the UK as for the French asses.

But everytime there is a "glitch" in the US-French relationship, we hear the same mantra. What it has to do with Sarkozy's statement beats me : the French didn't start that global crisis. The US did. the French and the Germans have a somewhat different approach to the solution than Obama's. Is that a crime ? what does it have to do with imaginary financial debts for historic events ?

I can only draw a conclusion : it's impossible to criticize the US even the slightest because the US still lives in the myth of its own infallibility. It might be OK to do it under a Bush-like period, because it coincides with the same criticism than the Democrats. But otherwise it's crap.

Right now the HuffPo is going frantic with anti-French posts because Sarkozy postured a little and BTW based on the same arguments that many US progressives have against some aspects from the current Obama administration's financial policies. OK Sarko/Merkel are somewhat more "Krugmann" than "Geithner". It's OK to have this debate in the US, but if the French (and often only them) breathe a difference or a choice, they are damned and automaticaly reminded of the great US sacrifices towards them....

don't you see the preposterous in all this, this incredibly arrogant attitude towards people that are officially considered as Allies, partners and friends...

luckily most of the French aren't aware of this ridiculous debate...

end of rant

[Mr. Hyde]

75. ------------

That's all well and good.
For my part, as an American, I am feeling like the world is maneuvering against us. It feels like a pack of wolves are circling us with snarling teeth and hungry eyes and Mr. Sarkozy's demeanor, a reflection of European perceptions I assume, seems to reinforce that feeling. America is a wealthy and prosperous country and we are resented for that by many even though we have been, with occasional exception, a force of good in the world since our inception. We are compared to the Nazis with regularity because of the power we wield even though we have never employed our power as the Nazis would have. We have occasionally strayed from the righteous path but who can say that the greater good has not ultimately been served by us? The past century was the bloodiest ever. The greatest evil ever arose and was knocked down by forces of good in America and Europe. In the aftermath, a new threat arose in the form of Stalinism and a cold war was born. America spent trillions to keep Europe free of Soviet domination. NATO was born. All were agreed, American power was a good thing. The military industrial complex was a good thing and unfunded paper currency was a good thing because it allowed us to create the power by which Europe was kept free of Soviet domination. It all came with a cost however; that being: inflation, deflation, debt based economy, and occasional instability. Through financial powers as much as our and your military powers, we ended the cold war and Europe was allowed to progress along a path of its own choosing. Remnants of that struggle persist today and still look to undermine American military and financial power in order to weaken us in order strengthen their own positions; for example, the suggestion that we return to a gold standard by the Kremlin's chief economic adviser Arkady Dvorkevich; the attempts made by China to dethrone the dollar as the world's reserve currency and the destruction of the world trade centers (whose motto was "peace and stability through trade incidentally"). I mention all of this only to belabor a point; that being, we all drank the banker's wine together as friends and we all got drunk off of it together but now that the wine is running out and the buzz is wearing off and the bill is on the table, everyone is blaming America for somehow forcing them to drink. Worse yet, our friends seem content to walk away from the table and stick us with the bill. It's all more complicated than this of course but, at the same time, it isn't. Anyways, I'm pretty much done with this. I think I lost my point anyways. peace.

[tocqueville]

79. peace nt

[Hawkowl]

85. US lost leadership to France in 2003

The USA has not been the leader of the "free world" since our unprovoked conquering of Iraq in 2003, when France, a former colonial superpower, refused to go along with our illegal invasion.

Now with the US's shattering of the world's financial system by systematic fraud, we are no where near being the leader in anything aside from fear and intimidation by our bloated military. If "we the People" do not take back our country, we will continue our slide into self destruction faster than any empire in history.

The world's empires die quicker and quicker over time. It took the Romans what a couple of hundred years to completely fall? And the British empire fell apart in what 20 years? I'd say that a complete collapse of American influence is possible in the next four years if we don't get our shit together.

[Darth_Kitten]

81. Prorated amount, then.....

If you are American, you weren't in for the entire war. :sarcasm:

[Hawkowl]

84. You are mistaken

This is a common right wing talking point that is completely untrue. Europe and Japan paid back their WWII debts a long time ago.

You've asserted this fallacy now cite some links to back up your ignorance.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

82. You forgot to mention white flags and lack of personal hygiene.

Don't you have some Freedom Fries to eat?

[Vidar]

30. Vive la France!

[backscatter712]

36. OUI-OUI!!!

Vive la regulation!!!

[AllyCat]

32. Vive la France!

I wish more would demand some real control. Too bad our gov't is the banks.

[Botany]

39. Les Français sont magnificint

we can thank Phil Graham for many of the world's economic problems


From wiki

The bill that ultimately repealed the Act was introduced in the Senate by Phil Gramm (Republican of Texas) and in the House of Representatives by Jim Leach (R-Iowa) in 1999.
The bills were passed by Republican majorities on party lines by a 54-44 vote in the Senate and by a 343-86 vote in the House of Representatives. After passing both the Senate
and House the bill was moved to a conference committee to work out the differences between the Senate and House versions. The final bill resolving the differences was passed
in the Senate 90-8 (1 not voting) and in the House: 362-57 (15 not voting). any veto, had the President returned the bill to Congress without his signature.] The legislation was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on November 12, 1999.


The banking industry had been seeking the repeal of Glass-Steagall since at least the 1980s. In 1987 the Congressional Research Service prepared a report which explored the case for
preserving Glass-Steagall and the case against preserving the act.


Financial events following the repeal
The repeal enabled commercial lenders such as Citigroup, which was in 1999 then the largest U.S. bank by assets, to underwrite and trade instruments such as mortgage-backed securities and collateralized debt obligations and establish so-called structured investment vehicles, or SIVs, that bought those securities.<15> It is believed by some that the repeal of this act contributed to the Global financial crisis of 2008–2009<16> , although some maintain that the increased flexibility allowed by the repeal of Glass-Steagall mitigated or prevented the failure of some American banks.<17>
The year before the repeal, sub-prime loans were just 5% of all mortgage lending. By the time the credit crisis peaked in 2008, they were approaching 30%

[katty]

44. Vive La France!

[marlakay]

45. Good for him, I hope he pressures US and England

to change to tougher rules.

[bvar22]

46. Europe taking the lead !

France....regulate Global Bankers

Spain...prosecute War Criminals

[rollingrock]

53. This is change I can believe in.

Can we trade Obama for Sarkozy?

[bdamomma]

54. Good for France, it is no use kicking the can further down the road.

[Fire1]

56. I certainly agree with Sarkozy. K&R

[readmoreoften]

66. French conservative politicians=more progressive than American "progressive" politicians.

It's not hell. It's just where we live.

[Odin2005]

72. I though Snarko was a Free-Marketeer?

:shrug:

Oui!

[defendandprotect]

83. How can it be that Obama isn't talking about "REREGULATION" . . . even now ?????

We have to have reregulation of capitalism/finance --

Unregulated capitalism is merely organized crime!

Where in the hell is RE-REGULATION ??????????????????