There are days that I really hate politics – days when my cynicism and contempt for the politicians, the process, the whole bloody, unholy mess of spin meisters, pundits, press, bloggers, and commentators from all sides of the ideological spectrum make me want to chuck it all and write about sports, or gardening, or cats.
Readers of this site know that this too, shall pass; that tomorrow or the next day or day after that, I will resume my role as cantankerous curmudgeon railing against the left, the right, and the squishes in the middle as if this feeling of utter, depthless depression about the state of the nation never existed.
Part of it is, I’m sure, the coming slaughter of conservatives at the polls in November. The ignorant, smug, self-righteous liberals who visit this site (as opposed to most lefty visitors who are thoughtful and eager to engage in dialogue) who keep telling me to “get used to it” haven’t a clue themselves what is about to transpire with this coming election.
We are about to hand the presidency to the most ill-equipped, shallow, unschooled, and naive candidate in American history. Less than 4 years ago, Barack Obama was an obscure Illinois state senator with a paper thin record of accomplishment and a work history that included organizing inner city residents by bringing their resentments against white America to the surface thus motivating them to vote and put pressure on city hall.
If one asks the question how he rose so quickly to the heights he finds himself now, all you have to do is look at his sponsors in the Chicago political machine; state senate Majority leader Emil Jones (who helped pad his non-existent resume by putting his name as a sponsor on bills he never worked to pass), the as yet unfleshed out Tony Rezko connections to the operators and moneymen who were invaluable in his 2004 senate run, and Mayor Daley himself whose brother Bill, former cabinet official in Clinton’s administration and the man who ran the Gore 2000 campaign, an unpaid consultant to the Obama campaign who possesses one of the most valuable Rolodex in the Democratic party.
And let’s not forget the man who has brilliantly packaged the Obama message of “change” and “hope” by obscuring the candidate’s unabashed liberalism with enough amorphous, non-ideological platitudes to pave the road to heaven twice over. David Axelrod has many gifts. But perhaps his most valuable contribution to the Obama campaign has been in message discipline. Never before has a liberal Democrat stayed on point through appearance after appearance, debate after debate, talk show after talk show.
And, of course, the candidate’s own numerous political gifts have rounded out a campaign that looks unbeatable at this point.
Given all of this, just how bad (or good) would an Obama presidency be?
I have written previously how this election reminds me of 1980’s debacle for the Democrats. And while I still think this is true, there is a major difference between then and now; Democrats today are much less united (outside of the Iraq War) on what needs to be done to “fix” things than Republicans were a generation ago. Back then, the mantra of “lower taxes, less regulation, higher defense spending” was an easy sell and GOP candidates from top to bottom embraced the themes that Reagan hammered home day after day on the campaign trail.
But the left today is not in as much agreement as to what needs to be done although the outlines of some programs will see broad acceptance among Democrats on Capitol Hill. There will no doubt be a primal thrust at the beginning of an Obama administration for some kind of national health insurance. All depends on whether Obama insists on his own plan (that does not include mandated participation) or whether he breaks down and realizes there is nothing “national” about what he is proposing unless people are forced to sign up and pay into the insurance fund.
Some of the more entertaining moments during the debate occurred when watching Hillary criticize Obama’s plan for not covering all Americans while twisting and dodging about the draconian mandates contained in her own plan that would force Americans to buy health insurance – even if they don’t want it. And if they don’t buy it, enforcement provisions will almost certainly involve the IRS. What other government agency is set up to do it?
Will Americans feel the same about national health insurance once they realize what it means – what it really means – as far as forcing citizens at the point of the IRS gun to pay up or suffer the consequences? We’re an independent minded citizenry and don’t like to be told what to do but my guess is we will meekly submit to this massive intrusion of our liberties because citizens are convinced only the government can act to supply them with competitive insurance rates. Regardless of whether that’s true or not it doesn’t matter. We’re going to have national health insurance by the time the cherry blossoms are blooming in the tidal basin next year.
On the surface, it appears that Democrats are united in their desire to end the Iraq War. However, here too, you have a wide range of options being pushed forward by Democrats that almost certainly guarantees there will be token withdrawals of troops from Iraq and little more.
Unless a President Obama is willing to fire Gen. Raymond Odierno (who will be top commander in Iraq this time next year), CENTCOM commander Petreaus, and a host of lesser lights and replace them with generals who will tell him what he wants to hear on Iraq (don’t put this past Obama – Bush did it, why not him?), it is likely we will have virtually the same number of troops doing pretty much what they are doing now in Iraq for the foreseeable future. Obama’s on again-off again advisor Samantha Power said the same thing and common sense alone makes Obama’s “plan” to reduce troops by a brigade a month little more than a pipe dream.
The reason Obama will give – Bush screwed things up so bad that the troops are needed to prevent catastrophe – will be close to the truth so all but the Dennis Kucinich wing of the party will probably cut him some slack.
The real test of Obama’s leadership will come when dealing with the economy. Whether we are in an official recession won’t matter as much as the fact that economic activity will almost certainly be sluggish with most vital sectors experiencing slow or no growth. There will also no doubt be considerable slack in the labor market as well. The question is will the Democrats and Obama take actions that will help spur growth or will they give into their worst impulses and raise taxes, gut NAFTA, and take other actions that might exacerbate the situation?
I have zero confidence that anything the Democrats propose will make the situation better. Overall, the Democrats are unfriendly to the idea of a globalized economy and given the opportunity (or forced into it by their masters in the labor unions), they will find a way to throw a monkey wrench into free trade agreements while perhaps making it illegal to “outsource” goods and services to other countries. This will force other nations to react to what we are doing and the entire edifice of global trade will be threatened.
This will almost certainly mean slower growth and more difficulty in getting the economy back on track. Of course, the blame will successfully be placed at the feet of Bush and the Republicans where some of it belongs but without the inconvenience of having to own up to policies that have actually made the situation worse.
As far as foreign policy, I am actually less nervous about Obama than I was a few months ago. The reason is I don’t think Obama as president will emphasize foreign policy the first few years of his presidency but rather keep his nose to the domestic grindstone. Allowing things to float at this point – with the exception of Iraq and Afghanistan – wouldn’t be the worst thing that could happen. The Israeli-Palestinian negotiations will go nowhere as will negotiations with Syria. Pakistan is already a lost cause. Russia will continue to be a thorn in our side as will China but there might be areas – nuclear nonproliferation – that would benefit all countries and where Obama might actually do some good.
The Iranian situation will resolve itself with or without President Obama’s help. If he actively tries to prevent Israel from removing what they believe is an existential threat, his presidency will be over. And since the US is going to get blamed for anything Israel does anyway, my guess is he will tacitly support any Israeli action against the Iranian nuclear program.
Would he attack Iran? Despite his bellicose comments about not allowing the Iranians to develop nuclear weapons, since there will likely be no evidence that the Iranians are constructing nukes, it is extremely unlikely that a President Obama would greenlight any attack on Iranian nuclear facilities. Israel, of course, doesn’t have that luxury and once it is clear that Iran could enrich uranium on an industrial scale to the 85-90% level, all bets are off and US support or no, they will hit the Iranians with everything they’ve got.
Admittedly, the fallout from such an attack could be extremely serious. But Syria won’t commit suicide for their Iranian allies by starting a war they can’t win and Iran’s military is something of a joke – outside of some rockets that could hit Israeli cities with conventional explosives. The fact is, for all their bluster, Syria and Iran can’t do much damage to the Israelis and they know it.
Diplomatically, it might be a different story. It would almost certainly cause the Arab street to explode – Jews attacking Muslims – and it would almost certainly cool relations between us and our “moderate” Arab allies. But as I’ve mentioned previously, the Gulf states and Saudi Arabia aren’t looking to expand their own “peaceful” nuclear programs because they need power plants. They fear Iran and any action taken by anyone – even the Israelis – to remove the nuclear threat will be greeted by outrage on the outside but relief behind the scenes.
How Obama manages all of this – and I fear it is a virtual certainty he will have to face it – will test both the man and his presidency. Is he up to the challenge? I am of the school of history that believes great leaders are sometimes born but more often rise to the occasion having given little indication they were up to managing great happenings. Think Lincoln. But also think James Buchanan who sat paralyzed in the White House while state after state seceded from the union. Buchanan had great experience in government having served two terms as a senator and 4 years as Secretary of State. But all that experience went for naught when he froze during the greatest crisis the union ever faced.
The next 4 years will see the US tested as perhaps it hasn’t been since the end of World War II. Our alliances, our security, our leadership in the world – all will present enormous problems for the next Commander in Chief. Couple that with a moribund economy and a restless citizenry searching for a unity of purpose and you have perhaps the most daunting challenges a new chief executive will have faced at least since Reagan and possibly since FDR.
I know one thing. Obama will be the only president we have. Doing everything we can to support him – at least as far as our consciences allow – could make the difference between success and failure.
9:30 am
I’m still very concerned about the close ties between Iran and Venezuela. Iran has missiles, or will within a few months, that if placed in Venezuela would be able to strike almost anywhere in the United States with a nuke. What would President Obama do about that? Move to Seattle?
10:27 am
I think everyone is missing the point here – if Barry Obama is as inept, unprepared and unqualified as we all seem to agree him to be – we have some time to actively campaign AGAINST the dope and support John McCain who is starting to show some unexpected spine vis-a-vis Senator Obama.
Many, many years ago I was involved in the campaign of a young man running for the lowly office of county recorder in a heavily rural county in Ohio. He was qualified in a book smart kind of way, but about 40 years younger than his opponent who was also female and a grandmother. Our advice to him? “She doesn’t exist.” because to do otherwise was a no-win situation. Our candidate and the entire campaign team knew our candidate had no chance of winning. The point was getting his name known. He lost that campaign – but won 4 years later. His name was known and by then his resume had been enhanced considerably. And because he hadn’t shown himself to be a churlish oaf by denigrating a much older woman who had occupied the office he sought for some 12 years, he hadn’t created any antagonism either.
1. If Obama’s campaign continues to deteriorate as it has already, he is unelectable.
2. If Hillary and Bill want to damage Obama’s reputation and electability, they will do so, and mortally if at all possible. They would be protecting their turf for a possible 2012 campaign – although quite honestly I think it would be a huge waste of time and money on their part. She is not really electable because she is deeply disliked by far too many people.
3. If John McCain chooses the right running mate, Obama is toast – pure and simple. McCain is already showing the kind of spine and ability to slap Obama down when necessary that he will need to defeat him.
10:50 am
Agreed – to everything you said. I’m disgusted with American politics – today, Thursday May 28. Tomorrow? Who knows.
It’s very scary indeed that so many people out there just want a Democrat in the WH at any cost. At this rate Pee Wee Herman could have been the nominee as long as the message of “Hope and Change” was adopted and funded so vigorously by the Soros cabal.
12:30 pm
[...] but we’ll also talk about the future of conservativism, a topic Rick broaches in this post today. He titles it, “Embrace the Horror” — is the future that dark? We’ll [...]
12:41 pm
Pragmatism or resignation? I’m not sure which way you are going here but your frustration comes through in the article.
I share your frustration and agree these are important times ahead for our country. And, unfortunately, most of what you have written about Obama; good and bad, is detailed and compelling.
I don’t mean to put words in your mouth but, I think you are really frustrated because we have John McCain as our candidate. At best, you have been luke-warm in your occasional support for McCain. Maybe I am just seeing things through my anti-McCain glasses, I don’t like or trust him, and most likely, could never vote for him even if Obama picked Oprah as his VP.
I hate to sound as naive and bull headed as Hilary Clinton, but, I’m still hoping something will happen between now and the convention that will give me some hope for the national election.
1:09 pm
rick,
i agree with you, the cat is in the bag. pretty big bag though, he might get out on his own, and quite possibly might choke himself in the process.
the scenarios you allude to are all very real and on the table. i just wish the chap had a bit more experience that we could gauge his reactions to these circumstances. alas, he doesn’t, and like kennedy’s gaffe with nikita, we may entirely have a situation, albeit with a smaller entity but a more credible threat (russia’s nukes would have failed to reach us as ours would have more than likely failed to reach them) todays will hit target. strange new world indeed.
2:05 pm
The Thunder Run has linked to this post in the – Web Reconnaissance for 05/29/2008 A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day…so check back often.
7:01 pm
In case you didn’t notice, this article was not about Scott McClellan. He was never mentioned.
This makes your comment non germane to the post – in other words – spam.’
You are more than welcome to address the substance of what I wrote – but leave the drive by comments at some other site.
7:44 pm
Obama weighing visit to Iraq this summer…
Barack Obama is considering a visit to Iraq this summer, his first since becoming a presidential can…
8:23 pm
Personally, I think Oblahma has as much chance of winning the Presidency as the Miami Dolphins have of winning the SuperBowl next year.
9:18 pm
Rick: We are about to hand the presidency to the most ill-equipped, shallow, unschooled, and naive candidate in American history.
I will ask a question. Was not Dubya even less qualified? With his silver spoon notwithstanding, nearly every thing he touched was marked by failure. Only by having powerful and suspect connections was he able to regroup and get ahead. The man was merely a tool. Let’s see how he gets by on the lecture circuit.
Having said that, it’s hard to get behind a flash in the pan such as Obama. I am a firm disbeliever in Duex Ex Machina. A national sort of hope leaves this atheist looking askance.
But Rick when you say: If one asks the question how he rose so quickly to the heights he finds himself now…
The answer is much less complicated than you imagine. For six years the Republicans had the presidency and the Congress. And what did they do? Squander the opportunity to enlighten Democrats as well as re-inforce the conservative base as to what a thousand year Reich might look like.
So is it any wonder that when faced with deep, stinking piles of excrement Democrats shun the Beltway Hillary and embrace Divine Intervention? I too am disappointed that Obama is the candidate, as many of your readers shudder at the thought of McCain.
When electing a president, we cannot choose the Cabinet. Arguably Rumsfeld is the architect of our less-than-successful position in Iraq today. And we did not choose Brownie to handle Katrina. I at this point can only hope that Obama is less inclined towards patronage and no-bid contracts.
Rick: I know one thing. Obama will be the only president we have. Doing everything we can to support him – at least as far as our consciences allow – could make the difference between success and failure.
Thank you Rick for allowing you are beyond mere Manicheansim. And thank you for including all Americans. Many of your readers cannot do that. They may wish for Abu Graib meets Gitmo meets Manzanar.
We vote for a president, yet we get much more. With Obama as president, is failure the best option? I think not. For the conservative readers let me remind you that Jesus will not return. Yet again!
9:29 pm
Your elegant and detailed post failed to bring forth the true horror of a Obama Presidency. Consider the fallowing:
(1)Having taught Constitutional Law at U. of Chicago he will have a slightly different view of the “Unitarian Presidency” than either Bush or John McCain. He probably would not use signing statements to point out “errors” in legislation, or direct the executive branch to ignore such failed legislation. He is a wimp, and will leave it up to the courts do decide such issues.
(2)We all know that while Hillary and McCain voted against a treaty to outlaw cluster bombs, Obama supported such a ban. This vote further points to his wimp factor. Imagine, just because such ordinance leads to significant civilian casualties, and persist for years, is no reason to ban it.
(3) I quite agree that the above described wimp factor will prevent Obama from stepping in if Israel decides to bomb Iran. The right to bomb anybody you feel like it because of an “existential threat” has been well established. Fortunately we have a President with moxie, Bush may decide to bomb parts of Iran first. I mean, if you are number one, act like it. All it takes is a pair of Texas oysters…
(4)The very thought that Obama and a Democratic Congress may turn their attention to Universal, Single Payer, Health Care is frightening. Can you imagine the turmoil that would arise if Insurance Companies were limited and regulated in their behavior? Is Obama incapable of understanding what a mess Sweden, Norway, Germany, France, Canada, Finland, and others are in… Sure, on a per capita bases these countries pay less, and by most measures provide equal or better health care to their populous than the US. But hey mon, they never get a chance to see the magic of the Market Place…
(5)The flippant repeating of “Yes we can
” and “Change
” is deluding and inflaming the populace. It was this kind of talk that lead to the excesses of the French Revolution. It is this kind of talk that will lead the great unwashed to disregard the need for a steady hand on the tiller, to stay the course.
Face it, Barak is a communist. Once you understand that, you really do not have to say anything more…
11:09 pm
Well, this is interesting. I went to the official Obama for President website for a look at any available updates on position papers to help me discuss this post. It is absolutely impossible to access the website without giving contact information first. Is it just me, or is this just a little arrogant in demanding my e-mail address before I can use the website? My conservative friends tell me that a far left liberal would not give a second thought to a mandate for getting access and I’m not so sure they are not correct.
My vote is still for McCain but I suspect Rick is right in the Obama election. We were so desperate for change after Watergate, we bought an unknown peanut farmer as president. We are going to buy another pig in a poke, sight unseen.
11:35 pm
Its going to be a long summer for Obama, I wouldn’t get too discouraged yet.
People who can land airplanes on stormy decks at night for a living are people who get better under stress. I wouldn’t underestimate how good the Navy is at sorting these things out. John McCain may very well look and act younger as the summer wears on. I think there’s some chance that Obama will look as if he’s been up all night studying by the middle of August.
McCain has an excellent sense of humor to go with his clearly bountiful intestinal fortitude. When the two men eventually can be compared side by side, and the heat’s been on, there’s the non-trivial chance that a person who’s been previously selected for high aptitude under stress is going to look clearly more presidential.
This is a marathon that, measured against life experience, is just a cake-walk for one of the candidates and his opposition just spent the better part of this year enervating themselves.
The discount on McCain in the trading sites seems excessive to me.
3:20 am
I keep holding out hope that most white males and white females will vote for McCain for the reason that Obama has revealed that on one level or another, he can diss them. Plus the “Bradley Effect.”
However, Michelle Obama’s ridiculous assertions on 60 Minutes in early ‘07 about “blacks get shot going to the gas station, blacks get shot because they’re black” in response to a question about the RFK possibility. And after dead silence about something on national TV by Omarosa-lite, HRC gets hammered for days in an offhand reference in an SD TV interview seen by hundreds of people.
NO QUARTER claims there are tapes in the TUCC archives of Michelle making a fool of herself.
And no one is investigating whether Michelle interned at Sidley Austin under Bernardine Dohrn’s supervision—-as did Obama himself might have done a year later.
What the hell is wrong with the Chicagoland press? Bill Kass says there are heaps of things on Obama that are simply not being conveyed to the MSM at large.
I knew Bill Daley right after he left the Clinton WH—-I was NAFTA coordinator for Amoco & we had set up a huge CSIS symposium with Richardson & Bradley presiding. NAFTA was dead in the water & this helped kick-start stalled engines. Bill Daley actually was negative in our meeting, much as Hillary said she was. Another weird Daley-machine secret.
3:59 am
geesh…with republicans like you throwing in the towel…we will surely be stuck with this guy…first of all I am tempted to say…watch what you wish for…you all bashed Hillary so much that you are likely to get him…however the democratic base that supported Hillary is holding out hope that the republicans can do what she was not allowed to by the stranglehold of the DNC…we do not want him either…
so buck up…and get to work…and do what republicans do and beat this guy at his game…McCain and a democratic congress is enough for all of us to deal with…Obama and a democratic congress is too much even for many Democrats
5:41 am
and don’t forget everybody to say thank you to Bush administration for creating this great opportunity for the democratic party…..
and what bobwire said at #11
5:47 am
Did the commenter at 13 miss the button on the Obama website that said “Skip Sign-Up”? It’s a pretty big button…
Rick – you say if Obama actively prevents israel attacking Iran, his presidency is over. Can you explain exactly how you think the process of ending his ptresidency in such a situation would unfold?
Regards, C
Once Iran crosses the threshold of being nuclear capable – not that they would be caught enriching uranium beyond the 5% level suitable for power production – Israel won’t have much choice. Regardless of how the Iranian regime’s rhetoric looks to us here, there is only one interpretation understood among the overwhelming majority of Israelis.
Obama can try and prevent an Israeli strike but in the end, it will be up to the IDF and the Israeli government. That said, washing his hands of an attempt by Israel to protect itself from a regime that has stated its intention more clearly than any other nation since Nazi Germany was in business will mean the Israel will be isolated more than it has ever been. It would be seen as abandonment by not only American Jews but a large segment of the Democratic party not to mention most conservatives. His administration would be dead in the water with a probable challenger emerging for 2012.
For all intents and purposes, his presidency would be over.
ed.
6:38 am
Scott:
See comment #8 above. Plus, no obscenities allowed.
6:42 am
What’s so horrible about Obama? Could he be any worse honestly than it has been the last seven years?
7:05 am
I disagree with much of what you say. I don’t think Obama can win—unless McCain’s health collapses or there is some sort of Democrat October surprise. However, if he is elected, an Obama presidency would be far more horrific than you imagine, sort of a politer Anglo-Saxon rerun of Allende or Chavez in agonizing slo-mo—and would almost certainly provoke a mini race-war here in Washington between his militant defenders and his growing number of detractors.
7:42 am
Our Paul
Since you are so enlightened why don’t you tell us what the tax rate or better yet what percentage of their pay the people from Norden (Sweden, Norway, Finland) take home (try less than 50%)? Communist no, socialist yes. To go along with your sarcastic wit, why don’t you enlighten us as well to the real state of all these smaller countries social systems? which are being destroyed by their open door immigration policies where immigrants are taking without ever putting a penny in? I mean really, lets try socialism with our open door policy with Mexico. All you have to do is read the news from Canada, Europe, and Great Britain to understand their wonderful health care system, months long waiting lists for chemo, MRI’s, ambulance stacking, etc… god help us all if you get sick or have some maladay, but by jeeves you won’t die of prostate cancer anymore. Come on blow harder…
8:34 am
[...] Rick Moran of Right Wing Nuthouse yesterday penned a somewhat dismal bit of prognostication called Embrace the Horror. I have now read the piece three separate times, as well as listening to a discussion of it between [...]
9:04 am
I think I’ve just taken your column and invited the entire civilized wolrd to go to war with me.
http://themoderatevoice.com/religion/judaism/jews/20015/its-all-about-israel/
9:57 am
What kind of an idiot are you, Scotty? I tell you that this is not a McClellan post, that comments on Scott McClellan should be left at a site that is talking about him and you go ahead and make a laughably ignorant statement about me not allowing dissent? 90% of my commenters disagree with me, moron or hadn’t you noticed?
Go to PJ Media and leave the stupid, vapid comment on my McClellan piece there.
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/white-house-backstabbing-for-fun-and-profit/
11:22 am
[...] According to Rick Moran over at Right Wing Nuthouse — Yes! We! Can! His post, EMBRACE THE HORROR, examines the overall effects of an Obama presidency on our national mood, economy, International [...]
11:42 am
So Our Paul, #12, fears the following horrors from Obama:
No unconstitutional signing statements.
The possibility of no cluster bombs causing significant civilian casualties.
No attack on Iran.
Ye Gads, the horrors.
How in the world do some people get so far off the track regarding what America should be about? America isn’t about cluster bombs to kill civilians, preemptive attacks on other countries and a president who ignores the constitution whenever he wants.
This is why Americans are ready to demolish Republicans in November. These are not responsible, conservative Republicans.
Republicans are supposed to be about limited government, responsible spending, low taxes and non-interventionist foreign policy. They don’t pine for cluster bombs and first strikes.
1:29 pm
Rick,
A couple disagreements on Israel and Iran (while agreeing with the majority of your post, particularly your frustration):
First of all, I think the primary reason Israel has not yet attacked Iran’s nuclear facilities is that it doesn’t have the military capability to do the kind of damage that would seriously put their program back. Unlike the Syrian reactor and Osirak attacks, an attack on Iran requires striking multiple targets, some in hardened facilities, at great distance. For all of Israel’s military prowess, Iran is a long way away and Israel doesn’t have a lot of capability to project air power far from its borders. They have too few tanking aircraft, for example, and they would be forced to refuel over the territory of some other nation – not an easy enterprise. The Iranians are also more tactically capable than Syria.
Secondly, any attack on Iran would have to be greenlighted by the US. We have aircraft and air defense equipment all over Iraq, Kuwait and up and down the Gulf. Israel will require coordination with the US to keep us from accidentally shooting them down before or after an attack. If our radars, for example, see a bunch of aircraft heading out of Iran at high speed and they are not “squawking” the right IFF codes, they’re probably gonna get shot down.
So I think if Israel had the capability to strike Iran, they would already have done so. Had the discovery of Iran’s program and facilities come sooner than 2003, Israel might have had a chance to exploit Iraqi airspace for an attack, but as it stands we essentially control the airspace all the way from the Turkish border down to the UAE. That Israel keeps trying to get us to attack is indicative of the real tactical difficulties for them to carry out a strike that would seriously degrade Iranian capabilities. And as I’ve said before, you can’t bomb knowledge and like it or not Iran understands enough centrifuge technology that it will be able reconstitute their capability even if Natanz is destroyed.
Since the 1973 war, Israeli strategic doctrine has been based on the premise that Israel cannot affect its enemy’s intentions, only their capabilities. This doctrine has informed every military operation since that time and explains why Israel will preempt (as in the case of the Syrian reactor). Preemption with Iran is no longer an option and the reality of Iran’s nascent nuclear capability is going to force Israel to change its 35 year-old strategic doctrine and US policy will have to change as well. I can’t say what the change will be or how it will affect things, but the next President will likely lay the groundwork for a new mid-east strategic environment.
3:32 pm
Speak for yourself Pug. Personally, if the target is Ahmadinejad, cluster bombs sound quite attractive.
But you are correct about what Republicans SHOULD be for. What needs to happen, in my view, is that ALL the current members of the House of Representatives should be kicked out of office by the voters and replaced with fresh horses (so to speak). The longer I live (and I AM old), the more I am convinced that politicians making a career out of the House or Senate is not healthy for this nation, regardless of political party. Of course, I’m also in favor of both parties being healthy and vibrant – which is also beneficial for the nation.
11:59 pm
jambrowski: of post 22 fame
I apologize if my snarky post #17 disturbed you equanimity. Although it tickled my fun bone, I should not have done it – times are really bad on the other side of the divide.You raised some valid issues, which in good conscience I should address. After all, blogs are way to share information, and correct miss-information.
Turns out I am not an economist, and I am unable to comment on the tax code in Sweden, or the other Nordic countries. But I think you and I will agree that the economic health of a nation, and its populous can be measured by a variety of indices, other than its nominal tax rates.
One index readily comes to mind is income disparity, which is commonly measured by the Gini Coefficient. A dive into Wikipedia will give you a short tour, complete with differential equations, of this index. As usual, Wiki’s strength is in its graphics and its annoying tendency to provide links and references.
One interesting point is the steady increase in income disparity between 1980 and 2006, the Gini coefficient jumping from 40.3 to 47.0 in the US. Thus the data points to a rising income disparity in the US since 1980. The rich are getting richer, the middle class is shrinking, and the poor are getting poorer. A color coded map will allow you to compare the US to other countries…
In the Nordic countries Gina index is clocks in at .25 to .29, indicating considerably less income disparity. But the Gina coefficient does not get back to your primary concern: The tax rate in Nordic countries, which you consider excessive. Before going there, to that dark mal odorous cave, let me bring up the issue of disposable income.
As we know, disposable income is cash left over after the necessities (housing, clothing, food, and of course taxes) have been paid. In the US, health care and educational expenses are paid out of disposable income, neither is considered by the government, and certain segments of the populace, as vital interest to the well being of the nation.
In the Nordic countries, health care and education is the state’s responsibility. The populace has made a social compact, the health of the nation, and the educational opportunities, are benefits to be distributed to all, not just reserved for those who have accumulated sufficient wealth to pay for these (there are other) benefits.
Back to that malodorous cave, where the black beast of taxes resides. An open mind, untainted by ideology, will look upon health services as Y goods for X dollars. If you are forking out X dollars for health care, it makes no difference whether the dollar comes out of your discretionary income, or whether the dollar comes out of taxes that you have paid. Stop, think of health care as widgets.
The populous of the US pays more for its health care widget than any other country in the world, by many different metrics the widget is defective in comparison to that available in other countries, and it too expensive to be affordable by up to 10% of the population.
Slice it, dice it, spin it, fudge it, the data is irrefutable. The US system costs more on a per capita bases than any other country in the world, and excludes participation by a significant number of the populous. No argument, finito.
The silly argument that we provide superior health care must be substantiated by positive proof, i.e., outcome measurements for the whole population of comparison countries with the US. If you searched for those studies, you would find them.
And I will close with your quote: “…months long waiting lists for chemo” … Please, sir, list the countries, enumerate the number of months, demonstrate how many have been denied such services because of inability to pay, or how many have had their treatments stopped because the insurance companies refused to pay.
Data sir, not rants!
PS: Why are Americans paying about two times for drugs than any other country in the world?
PPS: References and citations provided on request…