The Crystal Ball: Courtesy Of History

Sihouette

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 16, 2008
Messages
1,635
"..cataclysmic political and social upheaval, extending from 1789 to 1799, which resulted, among other things, in the overthrow of the Bourbon monarchy in France and in the establishment of the First Republic. It was generated by a vast complex of causes, the most important of which were the inability of the ruling classes of nobility, clergy, and bourgeoisie to come to grips with the problems of state,..

..For more than a century before the accession of Louis XVI in 1774, the French government had undergone periodic economic crises, resulting from the long wars waged ..The advocates of fiscal, social, and governmental reform became increasingly vocal during the reign of Louis XVI. In August 1774, Louis appointed a liberal comptroller general, the economist Anne Robert Jacques Turgot, baron de L’Aulne, who instituted a policy of strict economy in government expenditures. Within two years, however, most of the reforms had been withdrawn and his dismissal forced by reactionary members of the nobility and clergy,...During the next few years the financial crisis steadily worsened..

Despite general agreement among the three estates that national salvation required fundamental changes in the status quo, class antagonisms precluded unity of action in the Estates-General, which convened at Versailles on May 5, 1789. The delegations representing the privileged strata of French society immediately challenged the third-estate caucus by rejecting its procedural proposals ..

...Rioting began on July 12, and on July 14 the Bastille, a royal prison that symbolized the despotism of the Bourbons, was stormed and captured.

Even before the Parisian outburst, violence, sporadic local disturbances, and peasant uprisings against oppressive nobles occurred in many parts of France, alarming the propertied bourgeoisie no less than the Royalists. Panic-stricken over these ominous events, the comte d’Artois and other prominent reactionaries, the first of the so-called émigrés, fled the country. The Parisian bourgeoisie, fearful that the lower classes of the city would take further advantage of the collapse of the old administrative machine and resort again to direct action, hastily established a provisional local government and organized a people’s militia,..

...While the Constituent Assembly deliberated, the hungry population of Paris, a hotbed of discontent and of rumors of Royalist conspiracy, clamored for food and agitated for action. Reports of a gala banquet at Versailles stirred the political ferment in Paris to the boiling point...

...important changes in the relationship of forces within the French revolutionary movement took shape. These changes were dictated, first of all, by the mood of suspicion and discontent among the disfranchised section of the population. Wanting the vote and relief from social and economic misery, the nonpropertied classes steadily gravitated toward radicalism...

...the National Guard opened fire on the demonstrators and dispersed them. The bloodshed immeasurably widened the cleavage between the republican and bourgeois sections of the population. After suspending Louis for a brief period, the moderate majority of the Constituent Assembly, fearful of the growing disorder, reinstated the king in the hope of stemming the mounting radicalism and of preventing foreign intervention..

...Aided by treasonable errors of omission and commission among the French high command, mostly monarchists, the armies of Austria won several victories in the Austrian Netherlands. The subsequent invasion of France produced major repercussions in the national capital. The Roland ministry fell on June 13, and mass unrest erupted, one week later, into an attack on the Tuileries, the residence of the royal family. On July 11, after Sardinia and Prussia joined the war against France, the Legislative Assembly declared a national emergency. Reserves were dispatched to the hard-pressed armies, and volunteers were summoned to Paris from all parts of the country. ..the insurrectionists deposed the governing council of Paris, which was replaced by a new provisional executive council. The Montagnards, under the leadership of the lawyer Georges Jacques Danton, dominated the new Parisian government....Between September 2 and 7, more than 1000 Royalists and suspected traitors who had been rounded up in various parts of France, were tried summarily and executed. These “September massacres” were induced by popular fear of the advancing allied armies and of rumored plots to overthrow the revolutionary government. On September 20 a French army, commanded by Gen. Charles François Dumouriez (1739–1823), checked the Prussian advance on Paris at Valmy.

...proposals designed to strengthen the government for the crucial struggles ahead met fierce resistance from the Girondists....Royalists and clerical foes of the Revolution stirred the anticonscription feelings of peasants in the Vendée into open rebellion. Civil war quickly spread to neighboring departments. On March 18, the Austrians defeated the army of Dumouriez at Neerwinden, and Dumouriez deserted to the enemy. The defection of the leader of the army, mounting civil war, and the advance of enemy forces across the French frontiers inevitably forced a crisis in the convention between the Girondists and the Montagnards, with the more radical elements stressing the necessity for bold action in defense of the Revolution...

During this period rivalry between the Girondists and the Montagnards became increasingly bitter...From a military standpoint, the position of the republic was extremely perilous. Enemy powers had resumed the offensive on all fronts. ..

On October 16 Marie Antoinette was executed, and 21 prominent Girondists were beheaded on October 31. Beginning with these reprisals, thousands of Royalists, nonjuring priests, Girondists, and other elements charged with counterrevolutionary activities or sympathies were brought before revolutionary tribunals, convicted, and sent to the guillotine. Executions in Paris totaled 2639; more than half (1515) the victims perished during June and July, 1794. In many outlying departments, particularly the main centers of Royalist insurrection, even harsher treatment was meted out to traitors, real and suspect...

..One direct result of the French Revolution was the abolition of the absolute monarchy in France. The Revolution was also responsible for destroying the feudal privileges of the nobles. Serfdom was abolished, feudal dues and tithes were eliminated, the large feudal estates were broken up, and the principle of equal liability to taxation was introduced. With the sweeping redistribution of wealth and landholdings, France became the European nation with the largest proportion of small independent landowners.
Source: http://www.history.com/encyclopedia.do?articleId=209830

********
Whoa! What was that last part again?? Looks like the spoiled rich dragging their feet in times of crises and hoping against hopes that their illusionary world of comfy privelege will continue forever turned out to get them the exact opposite of what they'd hoped for.

Ironic.. ; )

Keep fighting away GOP...keep up the hate, the malice the divisiveness. All the while our enemies are watching, waiting, drooling over these great prairies and national riches from sea to shining sea. You are the traitors that are abetting our enemies; whether wilfull or not the result will be the same.

There goes darned old history, repeating itself as can be predicted like the rising sun..
 
Werbung:
The French Revolution:
[a].."..cataclysmic political and social upheaval, extending from 1789 to 1799, which resulted, among other things, in the overthrow of the Bourbon monarchy in France and in the establishment of the First Republic. It was generated by a vast complex of causes, the most important of which were the inability of the ruling classes of nobility, clergy, and bourgeoisie to come to grips with the problems of state,..
Sound familiar?
 
So are you saying that the "little people" will now rise up and overthrow the ruling class? Just what is the ruling class you speak of?
 
Keep fighting away GOP...keep up the hate, the malice the divisiveness. All the while our enemies are watching, waiting, drooling over these great prairies and national riches from sea to shining sea. You are the traitors that are abetting our enemies; whether wilfull or not the result will be the same.

There goes darned old history, repeating itself as can be predicted like the rising sun..

Hey, we've had an election and the Democrats are all in favor of fighting in Afghanistan. Plus, they are spending money on this stimulus plan that we don't have in the Treasury.

I will agree we have a serious problem with our government in Washington DC - particularly with their fiscal responsibilities. History is replete with stories of the "people" rising up and over-throwing their governments because of high taxation and other similar abuses of the working class. The US Revolutionary War is another example. However, stories like this are like reading predictions by Machiavelli - the seem strangely appropriate, but offer no real solutions.

Are you suggesting that the working class needs to rise up and overthrow the government and then change our entire form of government? I don't think that is your point. Perhaps you can tell us what we should learn from your history lesson.
 
Whoa! What was that last part again?? Looks like the spoiled rich dragging their feet in times of crises and hoping against hopes that their illusionary world of comfy privelege will continue forever turned out to get them the exact opposite of what they'd hoped for.

Ironic.. ; )

Keep fighting away GOP...keep up the hate, the malice the divisiveness. All the while our enemies are watching, waiting, drooling over these great prairies and national riches from sea to shining sea. You are the traitors that are abetting our enemies; whether wilfull or not the result will be the same.

There goes darned old history, repeating itself as can be predicted like the rising sun..

I would say that the rich elitist are still creating their empires and are not even ashamed that they don't champion equal liability to taxation which was the result of the revolution according to your article.
 
Plus, they are spending money on this stimulus plan that we don't have in the Treasury.
....But....due to the pre-War tax-cuts....it was necessary for BUSHCO to finance our goverment with borrowed-bucks (from the Bank O' Bejing), right?

republicard.jpg


:rolleyes:
 
Love that picture.

I wish I had one of those cards, but to qualify it's preferred you have a history of criminal dealings with shady characters and be willing to biff business to the tune of billions before they'll give you one of those!

Maybe my church pastor was wrong all along! Honesty isn't the best policy for getting ahead?

I realize some democrats aren't pure as the driven snow. But republicans have made a bold party platform out of impurity and vice so they're easier to finger..
 
....But....due to the pre-War tax-cuts....it was necessary for BUSHCO to finance our goverment with borrowed-bucks (from the Bank O' Bejing), right?

republicard.jpg


:rolleyes:

Isn't it about time to update the Republicard? Maybe put Obama's picture on it and rename it a Democard, or something?
 
Isn't it about time to update the Republicard? Maybe put Obama's picture on it and rename it a Democard, or something?

why becuse he is having to deal with Republican failed policy

Spending money to get econ going, raise GDP, and in end increase money taken in in taxes...


vs Bush...spend but leave nothing of value with it, and leave the economy off far far worse then when you got it.

Difference is Obama is banking on this being a investment that pays back or at least cuts losses..Bush just spent more and took in less..

after 8 years of Bush White House spending...do more americans have jobs? no, more have health care? nope, do we have better roads and bridges? nope, better schools....nope....Bushs 8 years of spending has got us what?
 
why becuse he is having to deal with Republican failed policy

Spending money to get econ going, raise GDP, and in end increase money taken in in taxes...


vs Bush...spend but leave nothing of value with it, and leave the economy off far far worse then when you got it.

Difference is Obama is banking on this being a investment that pays back or at least cuts losses..Bush just spent more and took in less..

after 8 years of Bush White House spending...do more americans have jobs? no, more have health care? nope, do we have better roads and bridges? nope, better schools....nope....Bushs 8 years of spending has got us what?

After eight more years of deficit spending, will we have better roads and bridges, better schools, and more employment?

I certainly hope so, but, it's going to take a miracle.

We don't have a choice between fiscal responsibility and deficit spending. What we have is a choice in how to spend what goes on the Mastercard. Are Obama's choices better than Bush's? Most likely, but let's see what happens.
 
why becuse he is having to deal with Republican failed policy
Rhetoric
Spending money to get econ going, raise GDP, and in end increase money taken in in taxes...

The downturn in the economy has been building since long before either Bush or Obama took office.

Do you really think that Obama can increase the GDP and lower the amount of taxes the fed takes in? Well, these are measurable. We will see.

vs Bush...spend but leave nothing of value with it, and leave the economy off far far worse then when you got it.

Troops in Iraq, Afghanistan, various bases in Saudi, etc, detainees in Gitmo, held without trial, etc. Obama has not stopped one of these yet. Perhaps they were all necessary to protect us from an enemy and both Bush and Obama are right to do them.
Difference is Obama is banking on this being a investment that pays back or at least cuts losses..Bush just spent more and took in less..

Social spending that is irrelevant to the problems of the economy are not an investment in the economy. They are investments in democratic power. How will you measure cuts in job losses? By what date do you expect the trend of the loss of jobs to reverse?
after 8 years of Bush White House spending...do more americans have jobs? no, more have health care? nope, do we have better roads and bridges? nope, better schools....nope....Bushs 8 years of spending has got us what?
[/QUOTE]

The unemployment rate today is still lower than it was in 2000.
http://www.tucsonaz.gov/planning/data/economic/unemployment.pdf

The number of people covered by some health care plan has not changed at all from 2000 to now. Since 100% of the population is covered by either private insurance or self-pay or medicaid the amount has not dropped below 100%.

"The condition of bridges is improving,"
Federal Highway Administrator Thomas Madison Jr. told the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee hearing.
http://wcco.com/politics/nation.bridge.repairs.2.814536.html

I didn't find any statistics or statements on the conditions of roads under the Bush admin.

"No child left behind" was written by Ted Kennedy.
http://www.tedkennedy.com/journal/1480/kennedy-on-no-child-left-behind-reauthorization
 
After eight more years of deficit spending, will we have better roads and bridges, better schools, and more employment?

I certainly hope so, but, it's going to take a miracle.

We don't have a choice between fiscal responsibility and deficit spending. What we have is a choice in how to spend what goes on the Mastercard. Are Obama's choices better than Bush's? Most likely, but let's see what happens.

I am really tired of hearing, "the Stimulus Plan maybe not be perfect, but it is better than doing nothing". I hear this from Republicans and Democrats alike - as if it was axiomatic. Then I hear economists say large government spend never "stimulated" the economy - all it did was to create a bigger debt for the taxpayers.

We hear that most of the money will not be spent in 2009, and the full impact will not occur until after 2010. If I had stopped breathing, I hope someone could come up with a stimulus plan that worked faster than that!

I think it is time Washington admits they do not know how to stop and correct this economic downturn. Tens of trillions of dollars of wealth have been taken out of the money supply by the fall in house prices and the fall of the stock market. Only time and sound fiscal policies are going to correct that problem.

It is time to think like a family that has gone into massive debt and now the bank and credit companies are banging at the door. We've all got to start working harder, spending less and tighten our belts. This nation needs a diet of rice and beans for a year to save money and get our nation back on the road to to prosperity.
 
If the government would cut back on the stupid programs we could pay less taxes

if we paid less taxes we would have more money in our pay checks

if we CONSISTANTLY had more money in our pay checks we could buy more products.

This would mean more people would have to be hired to make more products, those people would also get pay checks and then you have more people having more pay checks and they would be able to spend more money



If people have less money they spend less, this means companys lay off workers. That means even less people have less money and are able to spend less, causing more lay offs.

why is this so hard to understand?
 
If the government would cut back on the stupid programs we could pay less taxes

if we paid less taxes we would have more money in our pay checks

if we CONSISTANTLY had more money in our pay checks we could buy more products.

This would mean more people would have to be hired to make more products, those people would also get pay checks and then you have more people having more pay checks and they would be able to spend more money



If people have less money they spend less, this means companys lay off workers. That means even less people have less money and are able to spend less, causing more lay offs.

why is this so hard to understand?

Exactly right! If you cut the cost of doing business and take less money out of a worker's paycheck for withholding taxes, our capitalistic society would boom overnight.
 
Werbung:
If the government would cut back on the stupid programs we could pay less taxes

if we paid less taxes we would have more money in our pay checks

if we CONSISTANTLY had more money in our pay checks we could buy more products.

This would mean more people would have to be hired to make more products, those people would also get pay checks and then you have more people having more pay checks and they would be able to spend more money



If people have less money they spend less, this means companys lay off workers. That means even less people have less money and are able to spend less, causing more lay offs.

why is this so hard to understand?

It sounds good, and isn't hard to understand at all.

It is the reason why the tax cuts passed during the last administration were so popular. It is the reason why about a third of the "stimulus" plan is actually tax cuts, not spending proposals as so many seem to think.

It is the reason why trickle down economics was propounded during the Reagan administration.

The problem is, cutting taxes while increasing spending will produce a deficit.

That, too, should be easy to understand.
 
Back
Top