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…

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.

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.

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.

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/

http://themoderatevoice.com/religion/judaism/jews/20015/its-all-about-israel/