http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article … 9243932001
Austerity measures against the people but in favor with big corporations. Cuts to the people and no tax for the corporations. What's next?
Maxo, this is quite a story, is there a reason something of this magnitude is kept under the radar by AMERICAN press? I can't imagine how 100k protest anywhere does not rate the evening news. All the more reason to check to acquire your news from sources that are wide and varied and the truth is to be found in the midst of them all.
I guess they don't want to alarm us. They don't want to show that the European people are fighting their governments against policies that are implemented by corporations through their lobbying. For instance, the European Parliament is an American tool to sell the European people everything they oppose to GMO, participation in NATO's wars... Don't you think that it would encourage to do so?
The people are obliterated and ousted from the executive seat.
The US audiovisual landscape wants us to believe that revolutions are not occurring. Then what did happen in Spain, Portugal, France and now Belgium. People are fed up to be used and abused over and over by corrupt governments.
I read about the Belgian uprising in an independent source globalresearch.ca. It is a source of REAL information.
When the police and military powers are used to protect the state from the people, rather than the people from the state, then change will inevitably arise, because 'we the people' know that we want minimal intervention by the 'authorities' in our lives.
Find a safe haven, secure your boundaries and sit it out while the revolution happens, at least do that if you are older and have a family.
If you are of 'service age' get ready to serve, either serve the power elite in suppressing the people, or the people in stopping the power elite.
There are probably no more than 5 million power elites ruling our lives.
The choice will be how we stop them, historically the people eventually rise up and slaughter them, making way for a new generation of power elites to rise up and take control of the people again.
Maybe this time we know enough about history to stop repeating it?
I confess I don't understand why people go on a rampage of destruction, destroying not only public owned properties but the property (and sometimes lives) of their neighbors and friends, all in the name of "protesting". Nor do I understand why people then think that police trying to protect against that damage are considered as protecting the state from the people rather than protecting the people from the state. It is, after all, the people destroying the cars, buildings and other things of other people.
Can you help me here? Why is it OK to go on a rampage of destruction and not OK to try and stop that rampage?
You miss my point, I do not support the protesters, nor the police, I support the concept of dismissing the power elite and allowing a fresh start without their manipulation, and hopefully without the advent of a new power elite (political or corporate).
I often wonder why we allow a small number of people (the power elite) to cause such mayhem and division, when there are 6 billion of us and probably less than 5 million of them worldwide.
Who would take their place? The woman on TV that declared Obama was going to give her a new car? The third generation welfare Mama, periodically popping out a new mouth that she can't feed? One of the many that truly think government is an inexhaustible supply of money, just for them?
wilderness, I prefer your ghettostereotypes presonification any day to "power elite" that conservatives would put up on a pedestal at the drop of a hat
Actually, I do too. I've only met one rich person in my life that I could like.
But that doesn't mean that I think a third grade dropout, or a woman convinced the government can and will give her anything she wants is capable of running this nation. It takes a lot more than simple ignorance to do that.
Can you not conceive that you are surrounded by like minded individuals who, between our differing perspectives, are equal or superior to those who currently run things?
Sadly, no. That power corrupts need not be said - the only real answer may be to severely limit term limits and institute some kind of control over campaign spending and both carry their own dangers. We can see this as the same scoundrels ruining the country are voted into power over and over...because of the freebies they can supply. The nubes to congress never seem to last more than a few months or years before they join the scoundrel list.
For instance, one of the late campaign ads in my area was for a congressman that was touted as being good for my state because he brought in lots federal money for the state. He got someone else to pay for the wants and needs of the citizens here, in other words, and that makes him a great politician that should be re-elected. No, it makes him a liability to the country, but we don't care - our greed for more at someone else's expense is more important than growing the nation. And he was re-elected (as always) because of our own greed. Until we can eliminate that from the populace there is no reason to think that anyone can do any better than the crowd stealing us blind right now. A new crowd will just do the same.
I'm afraid you are compounding the stereotypes presented by the power elite, buying the lie that there is a clear distinction between the (crafted and created) low class welfare breeder, from the (crafted and created) middle class pretentious and proud 'salt of the earth' conservative.
Actually we are all equal, not in education nor environment, but in our humanity, and any discrepancies that exist between us are crafted and created by those who rule us.
The horror is that once given a chance, the most balanced individual, will flee into the welcoming arms of the power elite, with mistaken belief that they are ascending the ladder of success and acceptance.
No, the folk who should take their place are those without rancor and who have seen through the deceptions that our 'rulers' place upon us, those who are not afraid that empowering others would diminish their own comforts and security, and in any case are prepared to suffer disadvantage, if required, in order to break the cycle of power elite rulers manipulating deceived people.
Yes, we are all equal in humanity, but not in the ability to run a country. And no, understanding how the elite has conned us does not automatically make the man in the street (you and I) competent to make the decisions the nation requires for survival and growth. Rather, those very people are most likely to have already been conned by the second group; those that think the government is the answer, solution and bottomless pocketbook of everyone in the country.
Inexhaustible money that comes from our pockets. We pay for their wars, their mistakes of judgment, their bailouts... Who is the stuffed turkey? The people or the elite?
They want war against Russia and they overthrow Ukraine. They antagonize Russia using Ukraine as a catapult... and they will send the people to die for their interests.
My only concern would be a retaliation. Because I am an UNWILLING participant.
I thought the more numerous we are, the more powerful but we tend to forget the ability to think therefore I am factor. If the mass is associated to sheep there must be a rationalization of the statement somehow. And to assert my thought, why would be the validation of the idiom "divide to conquer" if the unity and the number were not dangerous weapons.
The question should be why is it that forces that are paid with our dimes are antagonizing the people? It is common knowledge now, that the people that are vandalizing property (as the good American that you are, with his higher sense of materialism) are hooligans paid by the state to discredit crowds.
But, again, who are you? If you are part of the elite, I understand your positioning. But if you are like most of the people, that is to say, you don't have the financial means to buy your congress why siding with your enemy? It is not because you are the epitome of good citizenry, meaning you would snitch on your neighbor at the first order given by your government, that your own government won't eradicate you from the surface of the earth because the aggregate production will be inferior to consumption...
Unfortunately history repeats itself. I don't remember once that the people were not used by the elite to favor their interests. Wars are thrown with the killing of innocents. How many of our sons died? How many of our sons killed innocent people? The rhetoric consisting of idolizing our soldiers as heroes is a lie. Why do they kill themselves? Don't, at a point, they realize that what they are doing is wrong?
As for the elite, meanwhile, it is thriving, isn't it? The multi-faced Lernaean Hydra is still alive and kicking. It is causing troubles in Ukraine, China, Africa (installing military troops pretexting an ebola outbreak and "changing governments"), Canada (it is exporting our local and national terrorism)...
This is absurd. Simply put Belgium is going broke, as it's public debt (welfare) is about 102% of it's GDP. Unemployment is between 9% and 20% depending on the age bracket.
Political divisions fall into three main groups—Christian Democrats, Liberals, and Socialists. Belgium is a socialist state and as such is drowning in debt. People are upset because the government can no longer support them. This is socialism.
Sorry, CJ, but that statement is unacceptable. It would mean that socialism in the form practiced by many in the EU is unworkable; that the people cannot live indefinitely off the labors of someone else.
And THAT in turn means that the mob destruction, demanding more welfare, lower retirement, and in general less work from the people for their goodies is unrealistic, that the people can't have something for nothing.
Completely unsatisfactory. Find something else to say; something that says people CAN live off of someone else. That Germany should support the rest of the EU maybe (although Germany is becoming more and more reluctant to give away the fruits of it's peoples labor).
I'm very sorry, but it is true. People's greed demands ever more for ever less, and when they can't get what they want they will destroy what others have out of anger and frustration that they can't force their government to take from the haves and give it to them. Saying such things as "People are upset because the government can no longer support them. This is socialism." will make you persona non-gratis to all the socialists out there. A terrible fate!
It is indeed true. Not since the uncontrolled Victorian era have we seen such a transfer of wealth from the workers to the wealthy. If they can't take what little you have off you then they destroy it anyway. Oh and just to defend themselves they accuse anybody who disagrees of being a socialist.
People are not upset because the government can no longer support them but upset because governments have become tools of the capitalists and willing to sacrifice anybody who doesn't lie down and accept the supremacy of the corporations.
Hi John - wondered when you would show up.
If you think people aren't mad because government can't support them go back and look at the link from the OP again. The demands are higher pay for the same work, lower retirement age (whereupon government support is total) and more welfare. There is no possibility of thinking any of that is anything but support from government and that they don't have it already is apparently a reason to destroy what their neighbors (not the corporations, not the rich fat cats and not the politicians) have. Along with, of course, what belongs to the public as a whole and WILL be replaced out of the rioters pockets.
Don't forget that the Daily Fail is a right wing newspaper and as such anti EU, anti the working classes, and anti socialism.
The demands aren't for higher pay for the same work and lower retirement age and more welfare.
The demands are for the same pay (not lower) the same retirement age (not two years later as proposed by business) and not more welfare but a maintenance at the same level, ie, no cuts in welfare.
BTW, the number of violent protesters was estimated at just a few hundred out of 100,000 and yet they get all the publicity!
To say that these few hundred folk represent the whole mass is as absurd as saying that I represent the beliefs of everybody on Hubpages.
Don't know what "right wing" has to do with photos of burning cars...
Unfortunately, the government has supported the people for too long already; the retirement age must be raised in order to continue any at all (unless the money is taken from someone else). And yes, the article was pretty clear that more welfare is being demanded.
I'm sure that there were only a relative handful. But that's why large demonstrations are staged anyway; for the leaders to gain publicity and that is best done with violence. Hard to believe that it isn't already in the planning when we see it nearly every time there is a mob "protesting" even though the suckers with the signs always seem to think that this time it won't happen. They're being played, that's all - used for the purpose of creating violence the media will report. Without it, the story is a paragraph on page 15; with it it's front page news with lots of pictures. And we're supposed to believe it "just happens" against the desires of those setting the stage for exactly that? I don't think so.
If all the photos of burning cars and bikes were individual and separate vehicles that would represent eight, but many photos are clearly of the same vehicle taken from different angles and different stages of burning.
I wonder how many cars were taken and burnt on that day without any political undertones?
How do you read "The trade unions object to government policies that promise to raise the pension age from 65 to 67, freeze the automatic link between wages and inflation, and cut public services in a way that would affect the entire population." makes it pretty clear that more welfare is being demanded!
In the UK and Europe we have a long tradition of police acting as Agents Provocateurs. The press report it so that they can brand all as violent hooligans and discredit the whole protest.
Probably no other functional cars in the entire city were intentionally burned. But why does it take more than one to decry the habit of wanton and uncaring destruction during "protests"?
I apologize for the welfare comment; the actual quote indicates that the government wants to cut welfare payments that are bankrupting the country, not that the protesters want more. Just to continue the unsustainable giveaways that are ruining the nation.
Same for the pensions; government wishes to follow the US and stem the blood that is draining the country dry. Which, again, the protesters don't want.
And yes, the government wishes to stop the inflationary practice of giving automatic labor raises for no increased work. This is in line with sound financial practices, but the protesters don't care - they continue to demand more for less, never thinking that it creates and sustains an unending spiral.
I wish I'd saved a video that I recently saw, but I didn't! It showed a peaceful demonstration in London (when I say peaceful there was a lot of shouting but no missiles being thrown likewise no punches) A number of protesters were kettled (basically trapped in a street with no exit other than through the police line). Without warning or provocation around a dozen mounted police galloped their horses in to the mass of protesters!
What is your excuse or justification for that?
What about the much greater unsustainable give away's to business? Aren't they ruining the country much faster? And how are pensions bleeding the country dry? Did not the recipients of pensions contribute to the prosperity of the country?
If the government wishes to stop giving inflationary pay rises how is it that wages have been falling in real terms? Again, they can find plenty of money for big business quite easily. Why the problem finding much smaller amounts for the people who generate the money?
Interesting video, if true. I presume the police involved were all hung out to dry on charges of police brutality...or was there just a little more to the story than showed up in the video?
One of the protesters reportedly commented that the government is coming after the wrong people; it should get more money for their wants from rich people. Funny how that works, isn't it? Always wanting someone else to foot the bill instead of stepping up to the plate and contributing a share.
I have zero idea how the country is supporting business (and doubt that you do either), but if it is anything like here the conclusion is that the poor think any support is bad - that they should not only be given that money, but more to boot, and let the businesses fail. We don't need jobs - we need money for the new car, TV and mansion we want!
But do not think I support general help for business - I don't. If it can't stand on it's own two feet (given fair competition) then let it fail and the jobs disappear. In time those jobs will come back and the short term harm to individuals is more than made up by the long term good of the nation in getting rid of business that can't compete. That my state is now offering tax rebates for companies to come here is a real thorn in my side, and for the same reason. The only thing it does is make an unequal playing field and force other states to do the same.
Why should they be hung out to dry and by who? Certainly not by the people that they work for, that would just be too hypocritical!
I have some idea of how government help to support business in the UK. The largest recipients of government welfare are not the unemployed but the employed. That is a massive subsidy to business and a far more effective area to cut back on than welfare for the unemployed, but that would reduce business profits so that wont do! We also provide business with free (to them) labour in the form of work for welfare. And before you say "good idea" there is plenty of evidence that people with paying jobs have been sacked and replaced with "free" labour.
Your idea of what people want is far off my experience. The majority of the unemployed want work, but work that pays a fair wage, not work that requires welfare to survive.
A dozen galloping horses into a trapped mass of people WILL result in death and severe injury to many. Or was it exaggerated just a mite?
No, it isn't particularly useful to the nation to reduce business profits to the point they go elsewhere. That's pretty obvious in the US, though can't speak for the UK. Perhaps you're smart enough to heavily tax any out of the country profits. It certainly is more useful to keep jobs than it is to simply keep supporting people.
It's that eternal "fair wage" that confounds the issue. You always use the term as something reasonable, but the real meaning is that labor is worth what some far off politician thinks is needed to keep their votes coming in. Instead it is actually what the population will pay for the product/service that labor is producing and experience shows that THAT figure is as low as possible.
You obviously have no idea of how well trained police horses are trained in the UK and you obviously have no idea of how reluctant the UK media is to give the establishment any adverse publicity.
Do you really think that [for example] a British supermarket would sell up and relocate to another country if they weren't allowed to use government provided and funded labour? Do you think it is more important to keep jobs at vast expense to the country than to let people support themselves?
Why does a politician have to be involved in deciding what a fair wage should be? Many of them have no idea, spending more (at our expense) on one meal than they expect a person to live on for one week!
No, let the people who are doing the work decide what a fair wage is. You constantly say that wages are decided by consumers without any evidence that that is the case. Why then is my local supermarket always busy even though it is not the cheapest by a long way within a two mile radius? Do you not think that people are a little more sophisticated than to be driven by price alone?
And if experience shows that what the population will pay for a product/service is as low as possible how come the most predominant new cars on the road are not the cheapest, that the clothes people wear are not the cheapest. That the cheapest restaurants are not the most successful. That people will run their own cars when often public transport is much cheaper. No, the only ones who insist on the lowest wages are the employers.
"No, let the people who are doing the work decide what a fair wage is."
Now that sounds like a really equitable and reasonable method! Of course, it depends on the honesty of people to evaluate their own work - something that I have very seldom encountered. I would go so far as to say that not a single co-worker has ever turned down a raise, or failed to complain they don't earn enough, in my entire life. Can you say hyper inflation, with $1,000,000,000 notes replacing the $1 bill?
Come on, John - this isn't some make believe fairy utopia world we live in, it is real and with real life people.
Real life with real people who are expected to live off fairy dust!
Yep - the fairy dust that will very quickly disappear as their jobs disappear when they get to set their own wage without regard to requirements of business or reality.
Funny, workers actually have more regard for the requirements of business than business has for the requirements of their employees or reality.
BTW I take it that you concede that buyers are not primarily motivated by low price?
Hmm. "Primarily" is a slippery term.
Given that a man wants a new car, very, very few will buy a Ferrari, although very few would not love to have one. Price keeps them away, and is often the primary reason the Ferrari isn't purchased.
And this one will buy a minivan even though he hates them; his family size requires it and the extra cost is almost irrelevant.
But...when he goes shopping for that minivan he will choose a model and then look for the best price. Best price, anyway, in a certain geographical area and with a business he trusts. So even then price is not the strongest motivator, even though it is at or near the top once the model is chosen.
Primary? Sometimes, sometimes not, but always near the top.
Don't be silly; very few workers are competent to run a business and don't care a whit how much the owner earns if he just keeps paying them. They haven't a clue how much of the money going into the business ends up in the owners pocket, and again don't care. And you can see this right here in these forums: because WalMart took in trillions last year it is known that they can afford to double wages for all employees.
Who mentioned workers running businesses (apart from you)? That doesn't mean that workers don't understand that businesses have overheads and that those overheads include wages for the workers.
Well, we do in the UK anyway. For decades the UK was run by consensus and that included wages. It never resulted in workers being paid more than bosses but it did keep the gap within limits, limits that we no longer have.
Oh, and Walmart could afford to pay a minimum of 15$ an hour without eliminating their profits, or even severely denting them.
I've done the math on Walmart; the company does not have the profit margin to double the pay of everyone. You can do it, too, if you care to.
Of course, they probably could pay $15 to everyone, but all the management will promptly desert for greener pastures and the company will die. Or do you propose that the greeters at the door, or stock boys filling shelves, be elevated to CEO?
Who, apart from you, mentioned doubling the pay of everybody at Walmart?
I have done the maths and paying a minumum of $15 an hour would cost them about 10 billion of their 35 billion profit, assuming that all those higher paid workers didn't spend any more of their money at Walmart.
Why on earth should greeters or stock boys be elevated to CEOs? Or are you implying that Walmart only pays its CEOs $15 an hour!
And it is the rationalization of a voter!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I have ENOUGH of that NONSENSE.
He will answer you, the right to protest is obsolete. Our only right is to shut up.
When I read you, you sound like a reminiscent dusty propagandist book lost in one's grandma's attic. The reality is much more CYNICAL.
And when I read you I see nothing but unsubstantiated conspiracy theories. Theories designed for the gullible, that can't see through them to the facts, and facts that are nothing but propaganda and lies.
So we're kind of even aren't we? One gullible enough to be idealistic and believe that people are basically good and one gullible enough to think the worst of nearly everyone in their country.
If one gullible does exist you do personify him to the fullest. You bow before your government (and I'm not talking of the presumed one but the invisible one), you never object to the wrongdoings and faults of capitalism, because at a privileged time in the American history you were able to get out of the mess that our government created, it doesn't mean that the economical situation of the country hasn't worsened.
If I remember well, everybody has to work HARD to succeed (the motto of our propaganda). When most of graduated can't find a job, what will be their alternative? For someone like you, a denier, the problems that America is experiencing don't exist therefore life is beautiful... Lucky us and the people that look at your prism.
LOL. I fully recognize the wrongdoings and faults of capitalism, and other systems as well. But I have never seen you say a single good thing about it, indicating that if you do happen to find something it is quickly buried and forgotten. Only the negatives are allowed .
As far as the (false) statement that most graduates can't find work; the truth is than a relative handful won't find work because they refuse to look outside their chosen job field or salary requirements.
Governments don't support people when will it be anchored in your brain? Everyday people protest, against GMOs, against trade agreements, fracking, nuclear proliferation... what did they have in return? I will end up believing that you are not part and parcel of your own society!
You're losing me. Do you mean that people go on a rampage of destruction while protesting because that gets the politicians attention? Kind of what I said, isn't it - it happens because it is planned that way to get the media in.
But at the same time, were I that politician such destruction creates only disgust and the cause purportedly behind the protest gets lost. Counter-productive, in other words.
Show me exactly where in any form of socialism it states that mass unemployment is necessary to maintain profits for corporations and that the unemployed must have even less to enable the wealthy to pay less tax?
I would agree, socialism is rot from the inside out.
What? You agree that you are talking rot and then back it up with more myths?
Your only defence against something that is not socialism, is not caused by socialism and has no relationship at all to socialism is to call it socialism!
I think that you need to do some research, as you seem to speak from a point of absolute________. The Belgium government is proudly socialistic, as you will find here. "The Socialist Party of Belgium (PS) was created in 1885 with a mission of creating a fair and more humane society in which the general interest prevails over individualism. The core values of the PS are solidarity, brotherhood, equality, justice, and freedom. The current Belgian prime minister, Elio di Rupo, is the leader of the PS as the party holds the most seats in the Belgian legislature. The party’s strongholds are in Southern Belgium, where the lingua franca is French.
I would be interested in your definition of socialism and how it is different than Communism, which is the other primary political force in Belgium. This division can be likened to the Catholic Church and Protestantism, my god is bigger than your god.
If I am not mistaken the government, which is a monarchy controls the economy and, at last report the king is a socialist.
The question that I asked and you avoided answering was "Show me exactly where in any form of socialism it states that mass unemployment is necessary to maintain profits for corporations and that the unemployed must have even less to enable the wealthy to pay less tax?"
To move on to your latest flight of fancy.
Since the 2014 elections the Belgium government is made up of three business friendly parties and the Christian Democrats. The prime minister of Belgium is not Elio di Rupo but Charles Michel, a Liberal (not a socialist).
Kings by definition are apolitical but the idea that a king might be a socialist is ridiculous beyond belief and beyond any understanding of socialism in any form.
I suggest that in future you avoid looking silly by doing some very basic research.
John, I can't believe that you still have the stamina to talk logic, reason and facts to these people. Respect!
Haven't you noticed yet that most of the people on this platform are uninformed?
And the US the EPITOME of democracy, capitalism is THRIVING? obviously NOT.
However where is the relationship between my answer and your question? I was referring to the OMERTA reigning upon our audiovisual landscape...
For your knowledge Belgium is socialistic.
It is our VASSAL therefore it isn't a Russian SATELLITE and following that simple logic it applies capitalism thus the lamentable results of their economy.
Because it might give people ideas in other countries, when they want/need to speak out and have no other recourse? Sometimes, it can be good to not remind people of the power they have as the people. In freedom loving countries, the people are in charge.
Its very strange it isn't in the news at all. Or I haven't heard about it at least.
by Josak 5 years ago
One of the greatest criticisms leveled at socialist and perceived socialist nations is their high taxes, usually reinforced with the example of France and it's high tax rates under a newly elected socialist government.Let's examine that claim factually, a quick analysis will prove it false.For...
by James Smith 5 years ago
This is the alternative thread to Sooner's arguments against capitalism. Not just to be facetious, but to get it on record 1 - It is inherently aggressive. It prohibits voluntary exchange and free enterprise, and steals property.2 - It is impossible (and NOT because greed mucks it up). All prices,...
by JON EWALL 7 years ago
The meaning of SOCIAL relates to individuals or groups. JUSTICE relates to fair treatment, correct treatment or judgment. Simple words that have so many interpretations in our world today. The world today has not changed, the poor, the middle class and the rich continue to inhabit the earth as it...
by Cagsil 7 years ago
Hey Americans,Here is a lovely article for you.http://news.yahoo.com/coburn-proposes-9 … 45582.htmlDo what you want with what you read. Sounds like more trouble coming to me. And, no real answers for bettering America.Then again, what else is new from politicians.
by SportsBetter 6 years ago
Why do we ask government for help?The point of The Constitution was to restrain the power of government. Today we want to give more power to the government. Really the more power we give them, the worse things get for the people. I am curious, why are people still looking towards...
by CMHypno 6 years ago
There needs to be coherent, balanced welfare policies in the UK. On the one hand there are people and families who have genuine illnesses and issues who don't seem to be getting the help they need and then other cases where they are freely allowed to exploit the...
|HubPages Device ID|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Google Analytics|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel|
|Google Hosted Libraries|
|Google AdSense Host API|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels|
|Author Google Analytics|
|Amazon Tracking Pixel|