NationStates Jolt Archive

So what gives with the homeless people, and the homeless dying on the street.

Dying on the street:
http://www.paris.fr/portail/viewmultimediadocument?multimediadocument-id=20213

Hundreds of pictures of homeless in Paris:

http://modele-social.blogspot.com/

Looks to me like there's no social safety net in France.

The homeless can be found anywhere in the world. Even france. Don't be too suprised.

"Homeless People In Cities! News At Ten!"


Seriously, so what? All populations have homeless people, and social welfare isn't perfect. What's your point?

"Homeless People In Cities! News At Ten!"


Seriously, so what? All populations have homeless people, and social welfare isn't perfect. What's your point?

The New York Times reported in 2004 that Europe had eliminated poverty.

"Even America's defenders must admit to the persistence of poverty amid plenty," the Times reporter Richard Bernstein wrote in an August 8 piece ("Does Europe Need to Get a Life?"), "and, by contrast, the abolition of desperate poverty in Europe."

Looks the same as here and for that matter every large city Ive ever been to.

Forgive me if I'm missing your point.

The New York Times reported in 2004 that Europe had eliminated poverty.

Um, in general the homeless aren't an accurate indicator of a country's poverty rate. They are a more accurate indicator of the rate of undiagnosed mental illness and often reveal failings in an area's mental health facilities/policies/procedures.

The New York Times reported in 2004 that Europe had eliminated poverty.

"Even America's defenders must admit to the persistence of poverty amid plenty," the Times reporter Richard Bernstein wrote in an August 8 piece ("Does Europe Need to Get a Life?"), "and, by contrast, the abolition of desperate poverty in Europe."

Just in case you missed it.

"We now go for the homelessness report! Ollie?"

"People gonna be on the streets!"

"Thanks ollie. Comming up, Dianes weight!"

:D

You're going to have a lot of homeless people if there are a lot of unemployed; no social net in the world will stop that if people can't get work. 40% unemployment in the immigrant banlieues is simply unacceptable and shows how desparately France needs to liberalize its labor market.

They wouldn't even need to get rid of their welfare or taxes, just the barriers to hiring and firing employees that drive up unemployment.

So what gives with the homeless people, and the homeless dying on the street.

Dying on the street:
http://www.paris.fr/portail/viewmultimediadocument?multimediadocument-id=20213

Hundreds of pictures of homeless in Paris:

http://modele-social.blogspot.com/

Looks to me like there's no social safety net in France.


They do...but dont forget the thousands that died because it was hot in the summer.

They are french....you want them to make sense ?

57 homeless people died in five months in a city with a population of somewhere in the region of 2.5 million. It's not really that much. And the photos don't show anything that you wouldn't be able to find in any British city. Just because a country has socialist policies doesn't mean that nobody is going to slip through the net.

Just in case you missed it.


you Quoted the Times...you get ten demerits:p

The New York Times reported in 2004 that Europe had eliminated poverty.

"Even America's defenders must admit to the persistence of poverty amid plenty," the Times reporter Richard Bernstein wrote in an August 8 piece ("Does Europe Need to Get a Life?"), "and, by contrast, the abolition of desperate poverty in Europe."

So...you're just trolling, then? This'll be another 'Bash the NYTimes' piece, will it? Or shall we have the brilliance of anti-French jokes as well?

I thought France had a lot of socialist policies...
Here's where you were going wrong.

Here's where you were going wrong.

Ah, so yet you live RRP! Excellent. Remember me?

The New York Times reported in 2004 that Europe had eliminated poverty.

"Even America's defenders must admit to the persistence of poverty amid plenty," the Times reporter Richard Bernstein wrote in an August 8 piece ("Does Europe Need to Get a Life?"), "and, by contrast, the abolition of desperate poverty in Europe."

So the Times want's socialism and isnt afraid to lie to advocate it. What else is new(s)?

57 homeless people died in five months in a city with a population of somewhere in the region of 2.5 million. It's not really that much. And the photos don't show anything that you wouldn't be able to find in any British city. Just because a country has socialist policies doesn't mean that nobody is going to slip through the net.


Just like in the US ! We just have better nets it seems . I live in an area of over 2.5 million people...in five months I can account for twelve deaths of homeless or transients...I work in the field BTW of MH and DD along with homeless and transient care..all paid for BY THE GOVERNMENT :eek: But dont tell anyone its not socialism...its non profit :D

The New York Times reported in 2004 that Europe had eliminated poverty.

"Even America's defenders must admit to the persistence of poverty amid plenty," the Times reporter Richard Bernstein wrote in an August 8 piece ("Does Europe Need to Get a Life?"), "and, by contrast, the abolition of desperate poverty in Europe."
Maybe...just maybe...they were wrong. Or perhaps it was a comparative analysis between poverty in America and poverty in Europe - and the conclusion was that poverty in Europe wasn't so bad as it is in America.

So...you're just trolling, then? This'll be another 'Bash the NYTimes' piece, will it? Or shall we have the brilliance of anti-French jokes as well?

How is that trolling? Are you saying that the New York Times was correct, and that Europe has indeed defeated poverty? Despite the pictures?

Social safety nets only catch those who exist.

The homeless are homeless largely due to the fact that according to the records, they do not. Thus they do not qualify for any state assistance except that provided by charity volunteers, and have no means of registering their existence or in the extreme cases, proving their identity.

Social safety nets only catch those who exist.

The homeless are homeless largely due to the fact that according to the records, they do not. Thus they do not qualify for any state assistance except that provided by charity volunteers, and have no means of registering their existence or in the extreme cases, proving their identity.

I thought socialism takes care of all that. At least that's what the politicians say.

A slander piece? From Deep Kimchi? No kidding?
:rolleyes:

57 homeless people died in five months in a city with a population of somewhere in the region of 2.5 million. It's not really that much.

Unless one happens to be one of those 57. Then it is everything.

How is that trolling? Are you saying that the New York Times was correct, and that Europe has indeed defeated poverty? Despite the pictures?

It is trolling. You trot out an obviously wrong article, act like you're all surprised when people say it's wrong, then attack Socialism/NYTimes.

Ah, so yet you live RRP! Excellent. Remember me?


I remember your sister. Nothing else.

A slander piece? From Deep Kimchi? No kidding?
:rolleyes:

How is it slander if the New York Times printed it?

Social safety nets only catch those who exist.

The homeless are homeless largely due to the fact that according to the records, they do not. Thus they do not qualify for any state assistance except that provided by charity volunteers, and have no means of registering their existence or in the extreme cases, proving their identity.


They arent homeless they are outdoorsmen.

Unless one happens to be one of those 57. Then it is everything.
True, but I'm not French, homeless, living in Paris, or dead, so I am unlikely to be one of the 57.

I remember your sister. Nothing else.

lol. same old RPP. But in general, i'm not a fan of france.

It is trolling. You trot out an obviously wrong article, act like you're all surprised when people say it's wrong, then attack Socialism/NYTimes.

It isn't trolling to point out that the New York Times keeps printing obviously false and distorted stories. Nor is it trolling to point out that the socialist policies in France obviously are not working as the French politicians tell us they are.

I thought socialism takes care of all that. At least that's what the politicians say.

Which ones? I thought this was a debate about what the NYT said.

Social safety nets only catch those who exist.

The homeless are homeless largely due to the fact that according to the records, they do not. Thus they do not qualify for any state assistance except that provided by charity volunteers, and have no means of registering their existence or in the extreme cases, proving their identity.

TG ..in the US we use non profit organizations funded by the local / state / federal government to not only make sure this group gets treated but gets all the help they will accept..In fact I work for one .
They all exist and are known...so what up with Europe ..dont they care ?
Or is our version of socialism working better ?

Which ones? I thought this was a debate about what the NYT said.
Read the moving ticker at the top of this page: http://modele-social.blogspot.com/

Plenty of idiotic untrue statements by French politicians.

DK: "The NYTimes is perfect! Look at this article!"

Poster: No, it isn't. Sometimes newspapers are wrong.

DK: "But I thought Socialism was cool and did everything!"

Poster: "No..."

DK: "But the NYT is obviously right!"

*Attacks Socialism/NYTimes*


Seriously. This is just basic trolling. Why do it?

Um. Kimchi, maybe you need to recheck what you're quoting to us. It says desperate poverty. Meaning--from what I would understand--that they have eliminated the kind of poverty that prevents one from ever finding something to eat, from ever having shelter, for going months with no hope at all. Homeless in cities are still a damned sight better off than your typical African village, what I would consider the definition of desperate poverty. Homeless in cities still have homeless shelters to turn to for food and--of course--shelter. They definitely have hope. Think before you go incessently ranting again.

So the Times want's socialism and isnt afraid to lie to advocate it. What else is new(s)?


Our version of poverty comes with a Playstation and two controllers along with a TV and a home ....whats your poverty come with ?

It isn't trolling to point out that the New York Times keeps printing obviously false and distorted stories. Nor is it trolling to point out that the socialist policies in France obviously are not working as the French politicians tell us they are.

*raises eyebrow*
Is the world really that black and white to you ?

DK: "The NYTimes is perfect! Look at this article!"

Poster: No, it isn't. Sometimes newspapers are wrong.

DK: "But I thought Socialism was cool and did everything!"

Poster: "No..."

DK: "But the NYT is obviously right!"

*Attacks Socialism/NYTimes*


Seriously. This is just basic trolling. Why do it?

anyone quoting the times should have to pay a fine of one cookie .

*raises eyebrow*
Is the world really that black and white to you ?

Awww come on! How can you think DK actually believes this. Anyone can see where this is going, surely?

*raises eyebrow*
Is the world really that black and white to you ?

How many times have I been sold the idea here - in black and white - that socialism is the cure for all social ills - complete and perfect - and that the New York Times really knows their ass from a hole in the ground.

TG ..in the US we use non profit organizations funded by the local / state / federal government to not only make sure this group gets treated but gets all the help they will accept..In fact I work for one .
They all exist and are known...so what up with Europe ..dont they care ?
Or is our version of socialism working better ?
Not really. Europe has higher social mobility, lower income inequality, and a lower proportion of homeless people. Those organisations exist in both the US and EU, and no personal offence intended, are equally ineffectual. We are simply starting with a healthier patient, so to speak. Providing aid to people on the streets is socially/economically speaking, emergency medicine, and it does not take the outcome far from its starting point.

DK: "The NYTimes is perfect! Look at this article!"

Poster: No, it isn't. Sometimes newspapers are wrong.

DK: "But I thought Socialism was cool and did everything!"

Poster: "No..."

DK: "But the NYT is obviously right!"

*Attacks Socialism/NYTimes*


Seriously. This is just basic trolling. Why do it?

Reductio ad absurdum is not trolling.

*raises eyebrow*
Is the world really that black and white to you ?


I'm sorry to "butt" in but I do not understand how this response correlates to the points DK made .

How is it black and white ? do you mean simplistic or not a valid comparison ?

if you do then would you not say that what the times is guilty of ..in most of the articles they publish ..or is it just this particular argument ?

I sometimes think that some people believe that if you criticize the institutions they live for and love dearly, their instant response is that "you're trolling".

Our version of poverty comes with a Playstation and two controllers along with a TV and a home ....whats your poverty come with ?
"Poverty is an economic condition of lacking both money and basic necessities needed to successfully live such as food, water, education, and shelter." -Wiki
According to this description (which I, at least, find very good) that's not poverty. That's the middle-class.

How many times have I been sold the idea here - in black and white - that socialism is the cure for all social ills - complete and perfect.
Then you have bought into a product which Europeans have not bought. :p

Socialism is not a cure for all social ills. It is merely best practice in certain parts of the world. But some people will still abandon society, be exiled, commit acts of violence, indulge in self-destructive behaviour... you will simply see less of it. Socialism is not a cure for human nature, which is fundamentally capable of great destruction, inwardly directed with the same vigour as outwardly.

The New York Times reported in 2004 that Europe had eliminated poverty.

"Even America's defenders must admit to the persistence of poverty amid plenty," the Times reporter Richard Bernstein wrote in an August 8 piece ("Does Europe Need to Get a Life?"), "and, by contrast, the abolition of desperate poverty in Europe."

Poverty statistics are like uneployment statistics ... they're not built on a realistic dynamic. In unemployment statistics, for example, that only counts people who are drawing unemployment but doesn't count people who just don't have jobs.

In poverty statistics, they generally look at income versus housing ... which requires an address ... and they generally don't look at $0.00 income or $0.00 net worth.

It's like the way the Republicans were spouting how unemployment was going down during Bush's administration when, in fact, it was only the numbers of people on unemployment going down. Doesn't mean those people got jobs, just means unemployment payments ran out.

Spin can be a thing of beauty. I'd suggest trying to ignore it and stop reading the Times. Even *I* don't read the Times.

I thought socialism takes care of all that. At least that's what the politicians say.
Find me a British politician who still utters the word. :D

Find me a British politician who still utters the word. :D

Well, New Labour gave that all up years ago.

Poverty statistics are like uneployment statistics ... they're not built on a realistic dynamic. In unemployment statistics, for example, that only counts people who are drawing unemployment but doesn't count people who just don't have jobs..

Unemployment actually counts anyone who is looking for work, not just those who are collecting insurance. You're still counted as unemployed even if your benefits run out as long as you've actively looked for a job in the past 4 weeks prior to the survey.

By and large, the headline rate is an accurate picture of the health of the labor market for most cases. However, in order to get the best picture of the market you have to look at the employment-population ratio; the participation rate is distorted due to accelerating retirement and fewer replacements to the labor force so is less useful than it was in the last recession.

France is Socialist now?

France is Socialist now?
Not completely. But far more so than the US.

Not completely. But far more so than the US.

Who in the industrialized world isn't?

Not really. Europe has higher social mobility, lower income inequality, and a lower proportion of homeless people. Those organisations exist in both the US and EU, and no personal offence intended, are equally ineffectual. We are simply starting with a healthier patient, so to speak. Providing aid to people on the streets is socially/economically speaking, emergency medicine, and it does not take the outcome far from its starting point.

I'll agree with one thing it is triage and emergency medicine..BUT ..the vast majority of " homeless " in the US are NOT there because of economic reasons. we have had a total breakdown of the mental health and disabled safety net and it has taken years for the US to come to grips with and deal with the situation. something we are doing very well with at this point. A seperate issue is the drug addicted and drug impaired population..they are either housed in jail or until they die with whomever will have them ....or the street ...and make up the majority of our homeless and criminal element.
Its in this area alone that I think the EU takes a far more enlitened approach..in the US you can get help for addiction but you MUST work or be able to work or be training to work to get welfare. exceptions are made for the disabled and single mothers DD and MH ..you dont get that with junkies..they tend to not stay in programs that will keep them on welfare and in treatment . IMO you have a subculture of drugs ..both dealers and consumers and the wasted humans who have been used up...thats a bigger problem from where I sit at ground zero than any economic concern.
But try to get any politicion to show compassion for a drug addict after years of demonization of drugs and those who use them .
Pots still not even legal and you can still be put in jail in some states for smoking a joint . you get HUGE argument over MEDICINAL Marijuana ! No compassion for people who are DYING ...and we expect hope for those who like crack ? or heroin ? As Tony Soprano says " Fagetaboutit " .

Not completely. But far more so than the US.

That wouldn't take much in fairness DK.

ask me,i was born there .when an imperialism nation became "socialist"
tell me when?
then tell me why?
finaly tell me how?

Not completely. But far more so than the US.

Aye ... and we have some of the worst poverty in the world.

ask me,i was born there .when an imperialism nation became "socialist"
tell me when?
then tell me why?
finaly tell me how?


OK

When François Mitterand of the Parti Socialiste won the Presidency of France in 1981 the Socialists had achieved domination of the politics of France. The municipal elections of 1977 had given Socialists unprecedented local control of cities and the 1981 national elections, in addition to electing Mitterand, gave Socialists a majority in the Assembly, the legislature of France. The Parti Socialiste had been in opposition since 1958.

Despite the Socialists great electoral victories of 1981 it was perhaps a time of ideological retreat because the Socialist platform over time was becoming essentially indistinguishable from that of its electoral opponents. The Parti Socialiste was becoming a centrist party. While gone was the fervor of 1905 when the Declaration of Socialist Unity declared:

The Socialist Party is a class party whose aim is the socialization of the means of production and exchange, that is to say, the transformation of capitalist society into collectivist and communist society. [...] the Socialist Party while pursuing the enactment of immediate reforms demanded by the working class, is not a reformist party, but instead a party of class struggle and revolution.
there was one last attempt at the implementation of the classical socialist program. In his election campaign of 1981 Mitterand enunciated his 110 Propositions, which included a program of nationalization.

Mitterand's Nationalization Program
The nationaizations 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:


Company Industries
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

The above nationalized companies had a workforce of 800,000. In some of these firms, such as the iron and steel companies Usinor and Sacilor, the State already owned majority shares. In others, such as CII-Honeywell and CGCT the State increased its share from a minority interest to a majority control.

The shareholders in the industrial companies received bonds from the National Industrial Fund and the shareholders in the nationalized banks and finance companies received bonds from the National Banking Fund. The bonds were to be amortized over a fifteen-year period. The annual cost to the State over the fifteen years was to be about 50 billion francs per year.

Even without the Parti Socialiste's nationalization program the French State held a substantial share of industry. In the area of public utilities there were the sectors of electricity, gas, coal, railways and Paris transport. In addition the two French airlines, Air France and Air Inter were state-owned. The Postal and Telecommunications Service was also a state-owned monopoly. As a result of circumstance of World War II the French State owned the automobile company Renault. It also owned several other companies, in whole or in part, that ordinarily would be expected to be part of the private economy, including the state tobacco company SEITA. Altogether the state sector accounts for about one fourth of the industrial output of France. In industrial exports the state sector accounts for about thirty percent.

The finance sector was also substantially state-owned before Mitterand's nationalizations. The pre-1981 state-owned financial sector included the commercial banks Crédit Lyonnais, Sociét Généle and the Banque Nationale de Paris (BNP). The state-owned financial sector also included special financial institutions such as Crédit National and major insurance companies.

Most of the state sector is in the larger scale enterprises. Of the employment in enterprises having two thousand or more employees one half is in state enterprises.

The motivation for Mitterand's nationalization program was the long term stagnation of the French economy. Between 1974 and 1981 there had been the loss of 700,000 industrial jobs. It was perceived that the achievement of new economic growth would require the restructuring of the French economy. Some explain the nationalization program as been the natural course of the Parti Socialiste trying to achieve that restructuring. Other maintain that the real reason that Mitterand went ahead with the program was that the Socialists would have lost face and perhaps electoral support to the Communists if they had not gone ahead with nationalization.

During the period of nationalization the French economy was suffering difficulties resulting from the increase in the value of the dollar relative to the franc that effectively increased the cost of energy for France because international petroleum prices were pegged to the dollar. The net result was that the Socialistes had to institute an austerity program. Ideologically the Socialiste politicians from President Mitterand on down had to retrench. President Mitterand began to speak of the importance of the enterprise as the creator of employment and wealth and the key to France's place in globalization.

Sources:



http://www2.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/socFrance.htm


counterpoint

What effects will the elections have on the Parti Socialiste?
THE PS GAINED a lot of new members just after the first round. But it is not moving left. It has just gone back to a 1997 position - a little bit more social, more open to young people's problems, etc. So it's clear that the leadership does not want to win back power on the basis of a lot of social demands. And so it is possible that a lot of those who have joined the PS will be quite quickly disappointed.

The most important aspect of the presidential election, in many ways, was the 10% vote for the Trotskyist organisations - in a country that historically had a mass Stalinist Communist Party. What is the implication of this?

THE TWO MAIN far-left organisations achieved 10% in the election, but they have found no way to reach an agreement. The main task will be to struggle against the attacks of the government. But to struggle against the attacks is not sufficient to resolve the problem of the Front National. To resolve the problems of misery, poverty and unemployment in France we will need a real new workers' party. A new workers' party does not mean only a movement with general anti-capitalist demands, etc, but a real party which is able to organise the struggle, to make the struggle win, and to have a real socialist objective. The proposal, for example, from the LCR does not deal in any way with a socialist perspective. They keep the illusion of just having demands that are enough to defy the system. On the other hand, LO sometimes speaks about communism but does not link the task of going to socialism to the building of a party. It makes no steps in that direction.

What is Gauche RŽvolutionnaire's perspective now?
NOW THE LCR has made an appeal to all those who want to fight capitalism to discuss together. Of course, we will participate in those discussions. But their appeal did not mention 'socialism' or even 'party'. For us, the next few years will confirm that the main task is to rebuild confidence in the capacity of workers and young people to organise and lead struggles and win support for a socialist programme. That is the way to defeat Le Pen and also capitalism. It is on that perspective that more and more people are joining us. We are ready to fight alongside all the genuine anti-capitalist and socialist forces, but with a strategy to achieve socialism, not merely to maintain the status quo or go back to some 'golden age' of the 1970s.

Election facts
THE FIRST ROUND saw a rejection of the establishment parties. 29,498,009 people voted (71.6%) but the 28.4% abstention rate was the highest ever (21.63% in the last presidential elections in 1995, nearly two million votes more). Spoilt ballots numbered 995,550 (from 888,810).

Chirac had the lowest ever score for a sitting president with 5,666,440 votes (19.88%) - 14% of the total electorate - while Jospin's vote collapsed to 4,610,740, against 7,101,990 for the PS in 1995.

The combined Trotskyist vote was 2,973,600 (10.44%) - 1,616,546 (5.3%) in 1995. The LO vote was 1,630,244 (5.72%) - 1,615,546 (5.3%) in 1995 - while the LCR polled 1,210,694 (4.25%). The Parti des Travailleurs vote was 132,702 (0.47%). The LCR was second-largest party among youth with 13.9% (just below Chirac). LO won 10% of workers' votes.

The PCF vote evaporated, with 960,750 votes (3.37%, its lowest ever percentage), from 2,634,187 (8.64%) in 1995. The Greens vote was 1,495,900 (5.25%), from 1,011,370 (3.32%) in 1995.

Le Pen's vote was 4,805,300 (16.86%) but Megret received 667,120 votes (2.34%). Therefore the total for the far-right was 5,472,420 (19.2%). In 1995 Le Pen received 4,573,200 (15%) but another far-right candidate, De Villiers, got 1,443,186 votes (4.74%). So the total far-right vote then was 6,014,324 (19.74%).

One survey said Le Pen's support amongst youth was 12% (down from 18% in 1995), amongst pensioners 19% (from 9%), and small business people 30% (from 13%).

The second round saw a large rise in turnout to 32,577,810 (80.14%). Chirac received 25,316,647 (77.71% of all votes cast including blank votes) while Le Pen got 5,502,314 (16.89%), only 55,400 more than in first round. In some areas, for example Alsace, his vote fell.

Blank votes were 1,758,849 (5.40%). There were also high levels of abstentions in some working-class towns, for example, a 29.26% abstention in Lille.




http://www.socialismtoday.org/66/france.html

They do...but dont forget the thousands that died because it was hot in the summer.

They are french....you want them to make sense ?

Because that could never happen here in the U$. :rolleyes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Heat_Wave_of_1995

"In July 1995, a heat wave in Chicago, Illinois led to approximately 600 heat-related deaths over a period of five days. It is now considered to be one of the worst weather-related disasters in Illinois history.

The scale was shocking, although the event itself may not have been that unusual. Eric Klinenberg, author of the 2002 book Heat Wave: A Social Autopsy of Disaster in Chicago, has noted that in the United States, the loss of human life in hot spells in summer exceeds that caused by all other weather events combined, including lightning, rain, floods, hurricanes, and tornadoes."

the vast majority of " homeless " in the US are NOT there because of economic reasons. we have had a total breakdown of the mental health and disabled safety net and it has taken years for the US to come to grips with and deal with the situation. something we are doing very well with at this point. A seperate issue is the drug addicted and drug impaired population..they are either housed in jail or until they die with whomever will have them ....or the street ...and make up the majority of our homeless and criminal element.
So in the case of the US, you would say the reasons for the severity of the problem has been political mismanagement of the infrastructure of social provision? But what would you say of the famous creed of self-reliance, and the idea of government neutrality / non-interference in such matters?

OK



http://www2.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/socFrance.htm
listen the mitterand era has neverbeen socialist.mitterand was a neocolonialist product,als chirac is.
but before going further we may have to define socialism.
now it is up to you

Because that could never happen here in the U$. :rolleyes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Heat_Wave_of_1995

"In July 1995, a heat wave in Chicago, Illinois led to approximately 600 heat-related deaths over a period of five days. It is now considered to be one of the worst weather-related disasters in Illinois history.

The scale was shocking, although the event itself may not have been that unusual. Eric Klinenberg, author of the 2002 book Heat Wave: A Social Autopsy of Disaster in Chicago, has noted that in the United States, the loss of human life in hot spells in summer exceeds that caused by all other weather events combined, including lightning, rain, floods, hurricanes, and tornadoes."

Your right it never could happen on this scale....not in the US but in any other industrialised first world country .


PARIS (AP) — The death toll in France from August's blistering heat wave has reached nearly 15,000, according to a government-commissioned report released Thursday, surpassing a prior tally by more than 3,000.

A funeral home worker in Saint-Maur-des-Fosses, southeast of Paris, prepares coffins for heat victims last month.
AP

Scientists at INSERM, the National Institute of Health and Medical Research, deduced the toll by determining that France had experienced 14,802 more deaths than expected for the month of August.

The toll exceeds the prior government count of 11,435, a figure that was based only on deaths in the first two weeks of the month.

The new estimate includes deaths from the second half of August, after the record-breaking temperatures of the first half of the month had abated.

The bulk of the victims — many of them elderly — died during the height of the heat wave, which brought suffocating temperatures of up to 104 degrees in a country where air conditioning is rare. Others apparently were greatly weakened during the peak temperatures but did not die until days later.

The new estimate comes a day after the French Parliament released a harshly worded report blaming the deaths on a complex health system, widespread failure among agencies and health services to coordinate efforts, and chronically insufficient care for the elderly.

Two INSERM researchers who delivered the report were to continue their analysis of deaths to determine what the actual cause was for the spike in mortality, the Health Ministry said.

The researchers, Denis Hemon and Eric Jougla, were also to recommend ways of improving France's warnings system to better manage such heat-related crises in the future.

The heat wave swept across much of Europe, but the death toll was far higher in France than in any other country.

Health Minister Jean-Francois Mattei has ordered a separate special study this month to look into a possible link with vacation schedules after doctors strongly denied allegations their absence put the elderly in danger. The heat wave hit during the August vacation period, when doctors, hospital staff and many others take leave. The results of that study are expected in November.

The role of vacations is a touchy subject. The National General Practitioners Union says that only about 20% of general practitioners were away during the heat wave.

Other European countries hit by the heat have been slower than France to come out with death tolls, but it's clear they also suffered thousands of deaths.

Environmental experts warn that because of climate change, such heat waves are expected to increase in number in coming years, meaning Europe — a continent that historically has enjoyed a temperate climate — will have to make adjustments.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


http://www.usatoday.com/weather/news/2003-09-25-france-heat_x.htm

listen the mitterand era has neverbeen socialist.mitterand was a neocolonialist product,als chirac is.
but before going further we may have to define socialism.
now it is up to you


Well you can start with redistribution of wealth and nationalising industry .
You can add state health care and a variety of social sevices...short of communism .

And the Soviets or any other so called neo colonial state ...what does THAT have to do with domestic social and political structure ?

The rest of the world including the French seem to think they are a socialist state...or have been and are trying to reform .

Anybody read Stuart: A Life Backwards?

Your right it never could happen on this scale....not in the US.

And why not exactly?

And why not exactly?


we are way too cool .










:p







Your right it never could happen on this scale....not in the US but in any other industrialised first world country .




post the whole line .

Well you can start with redistribution of wealth and nationalising industry .
You can add state health care and a variety of social sevices...short of communism .

And the Soviets or any other so called neo colonial state ...what does THAT have to do with domestic social and political structure ?

The rest of the world including the French seem to think they are a socialist state...or have been and are trying to reform .
in no way france politic will allow it as a social agenda.

Your right it never could happen on this scale....not in the US but in any other industrialised first world country .




http://www.usatoday.com/weather/news/2003-09-25-france-heat_x.htm
500 death in one city in five days.
15,000 death in a country in a month.

I'm too lazy to make the math but it looks to me that you are comparing apples and oranges. Both are fruit, though. So I'll say that another fruit can grow in either place.

Our version of poverty comes with a Playstation and two controllers along with a TV and a home ....whats your poverty come with ?

Skid row bums, alcoholics whove lost the plot and various homeless shelters that are generally sponsored and paid for by religious organisations. Beggars in front of 7/11s urinating in their clothing until it runs accross the sidewalk. Old men on busy street corners with signs saying "Veteran Please help" or "will work for food" Enormous lines in front of WIC centers. Hospital wards clogged with indigent patients because their systems can no longer fight off disease effectively.. Tiny one bedroom apartments on the wrong side of the tracks filled with 8 or more people. You know, the usual.

So what gives with the homeless people, and the homeless dying on the street.

Dying on the street:
http://www.paris.fr/portail/viewmultimediadocument?multimediadocument-id=20213

Hundreds of pictures of homeless in Paris:

http://modele-social.blogspot.com/

Looks to me like there's no social safety net in France.

That's because Socialism doesn't work.

Capitalism has homeless, but it's goal (unlike socialism) isn't to "provide for the homeless". It's for the "Homeless to provide for themselves."

Capitalism has homeless, but it's goal (unlike socialism) isn't to "provide for the homeless". It's for the "Homeless to provide for themselves."

Thats been successful also I take it?

Thats been successful also I take it?

In getting rid of homelessness- no. That isn't it's purpose and they're homeless usually because they are dropouts, lazy, or something that's flawed with their work ethic. Those of us who get an education and work hard and do finances wisely do just fine. Those who know how to REALLY work the system end up grossly, fabulously rich. Yes, it serves its purpose.

Your right it never could happen on this scale....not in the US but in any other industrialised first world country .

Don't be too sure. Most northern Europeans don't have AC like we do as they don't really need it (yet). Their weather isn't typically as extreme as ours is. All it would take to get those kind of numbers here is to have an extended black out coincide with a heatwave. It could be very ugly. The only reason the south and southwest had the large population boom they've had over the last 50 years is because of electricity and the resulting climate control. Loose that, and many will die. Mostly the elderly, infirm, and small children. Much like what happened in Europe.

Skid row bums, alcoholics whove lost the plot and various homeless shelters that are generally sponsored and paid for by religious organisations. Beggars in front of 7/11s urinating in their clothing until it runs accross the sidewalk. Old men on busy street corners with signs saying "Veteran Please help" or "will work for food" Enormous lines in front of WIC centers. Hospital wards clogged with indigent patients because their systems can no longer fight off disease effectively.. Tiny one bedroom apartments on the wrong side of the tracks filled with 8 or more people. You know, the usual.

Indeed. There is real poverty here, but many people simply refuse to see it.

post the whole line .

You're still saying it could never happen on the same scale in the US? Or am I misreading you?

If that is what you are saying, why is that?

Your right it never could happen on this scale....not in the US but in any other industrialised first world country
Well, let's see, the population density is much higher in France than it is in the United States. So if an extreme heat wave were to affect areas of the same size in both countries, more people would be affected in France. There are much older buildings in France, which are generally less accomodating to things like central air conditioning.

If there was a heat wave that affected the same number of non-airconditioned homes in both countries, it's likely you'd see the same levels of casualties.

In getting rid of homelessness- no. That isn't it's purpose and they're homeless usually because they are dropouts, lazy, or something that's flawed with their work ethic. Those of us who get an education and work hard and do finances wisely do just fine. Those who know how to REALLY work the system end up grossly, fabulously rich. Yes, it serves its purpose.
Hahaha... yes, everyone who is poor is just lazy and stupid, people only get rich because they're smart and work hard. It has nothing at all to do with luck.

Hahaha... yes, everyone who is poor is just lazy and stupid, people only get rich because they're smart and work hard. It has nothing at all to do with luck.
Or belonging to a family with or without money.

JEEPIE ,FRENCH FRIES WILL BEE FREED,with mayo:p

You can find poverty in every country.

and also, Socialism sucks. If european nations all become actually socialist, everyone there will be poor. thats why there should be no EU.

Or belonging to a family with or without money.
No, because as we all know, Dubya worked very, very hard before he entered politics. Controlling baseball teams and such extremely hard work.

Don't be too sure. Most northern Europeans don't have AC like we do as they don't really need it (yet). Their weather isn't typically as extreme as ours is. All it would take to get those kind of numbers here is to have an extended black out coincide with a heatwave.

Or for a serious heatwave to occur in the north. We generally don't have AC up here either.

Or for a serious heatwave to occur in the north. We generally don't have AC up here either.

NO AIR CONDITIONER?! I'D DIE!!!!

Hahaha... yes, everyone who is poor is just lazy and stupid, people only get rich because they're smart and work hard. It has nothing at all to do with luck.

Luck is just a given, we don't have to say it out and out do we?

NO AIR CONDITIONER?! I'D DIE!!!!

Well, it doesn't get eleventy billion degrees up here. The average high in the summer up here is in the mid to high 80's. And in Michigan it's literally impossbile to be more than 8 miles from some sort of body of water, so we have other ways to cool off.

What was this thread all about?

What was this thread all about?

Go read the beginning, and then come back.

What was this thread all about?
The average right-wing trolling.

Looks to me like there's no social safety net in France.

Of course there is a social security net, but these people fall outside of it mainly due to drugs or alcohol related problems. The social security system in France most likly works thousands of times better than the American one, but a few homeless people dont ammount to a complete failure of the social security system

Go read the beginning, and then come back.
you mean socialists in france:fluffle:
i like it,that is why i ask to define socialism..
Yeah!!!!! it was this thread.

Well, let's see, the population density is much higher in France than it is in the United States. So if an extreme heat wave were to affect areas of the same size in both countries, more people would be affected in France. There are much older buildings in France, which are generally less accomodating to things like central air conditioning.

If there was a heat wave that affected the same number of non-airconditioned homes in both countries, it's likely you'd see the same levels of casualties.


You do realise you created a scenario that does'nt exist ?:D

maybe the French should go out a buy some A/c ? or would you like the US to throw out the ones we have just to make it even ?

Of course there is a social security net, but these people fall outside of it mainly due to drugs or alcohol related problems. The social security system in France most likly works thousands of times better than the American one, but a few homeless people dont ammount to a complete failure of the social security system


What makes you think so ? I work within the US social security/ welfare community...tell me how we should make it better . Do you know ANYTHING about the social welfare programs in the US ?

You do realise you created a scenario that does'nt exist ?:D
Kinda like how you compared two scenarios that aren't comparable?

maybe the French should go out a buy some A/c ? or would you like the US to throw out the ones we have just to make it even ?
Maybe you misunderstood when I said that older homes don't often leave room for adapting to air conditioning. It's not a matter of not being able to afford it, it's a matter of the houses not being designed for it.

You do realise you created a scenario that does'nt exist ?:D

maybe the French should go out a buy some A/c ? or would you like the US to throw out the ones we have just to make it even ?
the late one is definetly the best option

Or belonging to a family with or without money.
You know, I thought about adding that, but then usually there's the whole "argument" of "well, if their ancestors weren't stupid and lazy..."

You're still saying it could never happen on the same scale in the US? Or am I misreading you?

If that is what you are saying, why is that?


Because ...well just look at the bird flue...something that MIGHT happen...look at the panic and the publicity...now imagine a few hundred old people dying from heat....:eek: PUBLIC OUTRAGE ! demands for political heads to roll..people like me going door to door with fans and water for the elderly...We are Americans we REALLY do give a shit about each other..and it would NOT take fucking 15,000 people to die before we did anything..

other than that no reason .

What makes you think so ? I work within the US social security/ welfare community...tell me how we should make it better . Do you know ANYTHING about the social welfare programs in the US ?

I KNOW HOW TO FIX THEM!!!

DROP THEM!!! That takes care of their not functioning well.

Kinda like how you compared two scenarios that aren't comparable?


Maybe you misunderstood when I said that older homes don't often leave room for adapting to air conditioning. It's not a matter of not being able to afford it, it's a matter of the houses not being designed for it.


Ok we have the same situation here ..every summer..there are homes that have no A/C . What we do is to have our neighbors check on the elderly and we also have organizations that provide them with FREE fans and bottled water and places to go durring the day to keep cool .

we do not have thousands of old people dropping dead while we whistle C'est la vie....we have month long heat waves and power outtages...every year...300 million of us figured out how to keep cool minus a few hundred here or there who got missed...but 15,000 !!!!!!! COME ON NOW ..thats sick..from being hot ?

I KNOW HOW TO FIX THEM!!!

DROP THEM!!! That takes care of their not functioning well.


drop them where ..france ?:D

drop them where ..france ?:D

NO! SILLY! On my neighbor's house! *evil cackle*

NO! SILLY! On my neighbor's house! *evil cackle*
Morals is not french
I repeat:
Morals is not french

NO! SILLY! On my neighbor's house! *evil cackle*



No joke but the evil politicions that should have their balls boiled in hot grease and then fed to them ...try to do exactly that..drop them ..not on your neighbors house..but from funded programs..the evil bastards are always
looking for ways to screw up programs or cut funding by changing the friggin already ridiculouse rules...with the end result that some do get dropped and guess where? ...... on yours..... or your neighbors doorstep..then we have to find more funding or make do with less..because the neighbors tend to bitch when they wake up with a homeless guy on their step .

Before I die I hope to take care of all the evil bastards on my list...:D

there are always going 2 be homeless people in the world, but if the goverments would do something to correct that then that would be a big help. also, these "non-profit" organizations say they don't take any money, but they take up 2 40% of what they make. the thing that would really help the world is if evertbody would show some more love and trust in God and all he can do.

there are always going 2 be homeless people in the world, but if the goverments would do something to correct that then that would be a big help. also, these "non-profit" organizations say they don't take any money, but they take up 2 40% of what they make. the thing that would really help the world is if evertbody would show some more love and trust in God and all he can do.

If you were in a desert and didnt bring water how long before God would let you die or drop some water on you ?

I do not mean to be mean but " God helps those who help themselves" and remember to bring water into the desert and open some windows when it gets hot .

That isn't it's purpose and they're homeless usually because they are dropouts, lazy, or something that's flawed with their work ethic.

Um, yeah, that's why the homeless are homeless.

Um, yeah, that's why the homeless are homeless.

Except for the mentally ill that cant take care of themselves and wont stay in treatment and those that are disabled and refuse to be warehoused and those that are both mentally ill and substance abusers and those that are not in the " system" yet because of lack of work , bancruptcy , workmens compensation claims denied , social security claims denied , flooded out with no insurance , burnt out with no insurance , run over by an unisured motorist ...those that are substance abusers and are not in treatment because they are not totally broke yet...those that are not on welfare because they are not totally broke yet..those that moved to a new area and planned badly and find themselves with no job and no address to give to a prospective employer aside from the car they live in . those who are fixed income and have had there home condemned and are waiting for housing...

How many more pages should I type for you ?

How many more pages should I type for you ?

I was being sarcastic. ;) We're saying the same thing. Well, you're saying it, I'm not bothering because regardless of what we say, they'll all believe that anyone who is poor is homeless, so what's the point. :headbang:

The New York Times reported in 2004 that Europe had eliminated poverty.

"Even America's defenders must admit to the persistence of poverty amid plenty," the Times reporter Richard Bernstein wrote in an August 8 piece ("Does Europe Need to Get a Life?"), "and, by contrast, the abolition of desperate poverty in Europe."
Did Jason Blair write the article?

But seriously, it's okay for the French to have homeless. I don't know why, but it's okay.

I was being sarcastic. ;) We're saying the same thing. Well, you're saying it, I'm not bothering because regardless of what we say, they'll all believe that anyone who is poor is homeless, so what's the point. :headbang:


The point is they are blind and need to be educated so they will force the dudes we vote for to pay more attention to those less fortunate . AND not by choice or lack of effort .

The New York Times reported in 2004 that Europe had eliminated poverty.

"Even America's defenders must admit to the persistence of poverty amid plenty," the Times reporter Richard Bernstein wrote in an August 8 piece ("Does Europe Need to Get a Life?"), "and, by contrast, the abolition of desperate poverty in Europe."
Well, we don't have people starving to death here.

Perhaps the answer is that France is not socialist enough to eliminate homelessness. Most French people would probably agree too.

They wouldn't even need to get rid of their welfare or taxes, just the barriers to hiring and firing employees that drive up unemployment.
I agree. Lefty as I am the government's proposal made sense.

I thought socialism takes care of all that. At least that's what the politicians say.
There are socialist politicians?

Nor is it trolling to point out that the socialist policies in France obviously are not working as the French politicians tell us they are.
Here it is you that are lying. France is not perfect, but they have less poverty than America, so please stop talking out of your ass.

How many times have I been sold the idea here - in black and white - that socialism is the cure for all social ills
And that France is not a socialist country. They're a mixed economy like everyone else.

Reductio ad absurdum is not trolling.
Latin doesn't compel agreement.

I sometimes think that some people believe that if you criticize the institutions they live for and love dearly, their instant response is that "you're trolling".
Who here lives for the French government?

Capitalism has homeless, but it's goal (unlike socialism) isn't to "provide for the homeless". It's for the "Homeless to provide for themselves."
That's why capitalism doesn't do the job. It needs help.

In getting rid of homelessness- no. That isn't it's purpose and they're homeless usually because they are dropouts, lazy, or something that's flawed with their work ethic. Those of us who get an education and work hard and do finances wisely do just fine. Those who know how to REALLY work the system end up grossly, fabulously rich. Yes, it serves its purpose.
Keep dreaming.

You can find poverty in every country.

and also, Socialism sucks. If european nations all become actually socialist, everyone there will be poor. thats why there should be no EU.
How naive of you. Without the EU your country would be moving at a much slower pace. If Poland alone, trade barriers and all, is so great then why are there 150,000 Poles working in Ireland?

The EU is not an engine of socialism so much as an engine of liberalism.