"When it's all going downhill, sit on your bums and enjoy the slide."
- yours truly The Maverick
May your Season be Festive
1 year ago
Thursday, December 10, 2009
Saturday, November 22, 2008
Rants 2 - On Economics
If my previous email (Rants 1) hasn't offended, or at least alienated, everyone, then this one should do the trick.
(Because of the slight ambiguity in terminology, I want to specify that by using the term “capitalism” I refer to the whole concept of “free-market economy”)
Allow me to begin by saying that I started off as an Ayn Rand capitalist, and I am not ashamed to admit that. There is something enticing about “being in control of your own destiny”.
It is just so ridiculously clear, sensible and logical that if everyone takes care of himself/herself, then the whole society is taken care of. On the other hand, when there are community resources and community accountabilities (as opposed to individual ones), irresponsible waste is inevitable. That makes perfect intuitive sense.
But capitalism kills the capitalist ideal just the way communism kills the communist ideal. The corporation, that towering achievement of modern capitalism, can be credited with much of the success of capitalism. At the same time, by separating ownership from management, and further by turning the focus of management from long-term goals to quarter-to-quarter thinking, the corporation fosters an environment where the capitalist ideal can die a silent death.
And while the Republicans are correctly blaming President William J Clinton’s administration for a large part of the current crisis, what they forget to mention is that irrespective of the party in power, it was the policy of laissez faire that brought the stack of cards down. (Except for Republicans like Gov Palin, of course, who seem to have no qualms about saying, “Government, get out of my way” and “we need more regulation and oversight” in the same breath.)
Alan Greenspan recently talked about a “flaw” that he discovered in his philosophy. If one looks past the jargon, he essentially said that he did not account for human nature, and that left to their own devices people and corporations can act unethically. (Not to mention the presence of perverse incentives that foster quarter-to-quarter thinking)
Coming from a pillar of modern capitalism, this statement was certainly shocking. In his seminal work, "An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations", Adam Smith certainly doesn’t make that assumption. In fact, he believes that human nature is selfishness and greed and that if we are all selfish and greedy together then things will balance out in the larger picture. Hold this thought as we will return to it in a moment.
---- From this point, your head may start shaking involuntarily, your ears may experience spontaneous combustion, and your brain may lose all focus , but I implore you to look past the labels and keep an open mind as you read on ----
It’s truly a seductive concept that a society will only function if everyone knows that if they are smarter and work harder then they’ll have a bigger paycheck, a bigger car, and a bigger house. That monetary reward proportionate to ability and effort is the primary motivation of human enterprise is an indoctrination (and therefore a bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy), and not a truism.
Otherwise, why would people write blogs, why would they participate in the Olympics, why would people create free open-source software, why would they sacrifice their today for the well-being of their children and grandchildren, and indeed, why would people go from door to door, campaigning for their favorite politician? In fact, why would any voluntary work exist at all?
Researchers from Herzberg to Adams have found that “more money” is not the only, and not even the primary, motivator for most people.
Socialism has been demonized for long in the American society, and even those that believe in some or most principles of it steer clear of the label itself. The power of branding, if you will. I’d like to submit, however, that as a concept it is not as monstrous as it is made out to be (with apologies to all who might have suffered unspeakable atrocities under communist regimes).
Think about it – capitalism is not a new concept; it has been around forever. There was a reason that socialism came into being. That reason was exploitation of the masses and extreme discrepancies in the standards of living of the rich and the poor under the capitalist formula. It is sort of okay when everyone is poor, everyone is in the same boat, and there is no other world that the people have seen. It is also okay when based on their work, people earn different levels of money, status or respect. However when these differences become so stark as to be extreme, it gives rise to a sense of “unfairness” and “envy”, and an unstable society.
Most importantly, irrespective of how smart or able we are, we stand on the shoulders of others – past and present, and it is quite arrogant, not just selfish, on our parts to claim the credit and rewards for ourselves.
Even *if* we were to agree that “every man for himself” makes perfect sense and is the fair thing to do, we would have trouble explaining the laws of inheritance. Why, if everyone gains as per their ability, should a rich person’s children end up owning massive wealth?
It is nobody’s case that socialism is a better system and we should move to it. My point is that the old models like capitalism and socialism do not reflect the ground realities on this century, and we need a paradigm-shift in our economic thinking.
Capitalism served us just fine when the markets were smaller & local, and the players were smaller. But in today’s world with unfathomable amounts of capital forming formidable barriers to entry for new players, virtually every market turning into a network-effects economy, patents & copyrights, government influence and lobbying, and complicated capital and labor flows, the invisible hand is not as potent anymore.
(Sidenote – it is quite interesting that the free-market advocates are not vociferously demanding the opening up of US-Mexico border a la intra-EU borders to allow for free flow of labor)
The fact is that whether one worships analytical techniques like Game Theory, or touchy feely leadership of Stephen Covey, it is quite clear that when individuals work towards a common goal everyone benefits more (and the pie is bigger), as opposed to the common capitalist belief that if individuals work for themselves, individuals benefit in an economically-efficient solution. And this particular brand of philosophy is not a part of either of the conventional economic models. We need something radical, something pathbreaking, something that can create win-win situations and an “envy-free” society.
Am I offering solutions? Unfortunately not. Not yet anyway. In any case, this issue is probably for minds sharper than mine. But in the meantime, it may be a good idea to use a hybrid of systems – instead of getting ideologically married to one system or the other, we could cherry-pick the items we like from all available systems, and work with that.
Taxes
I followed with interest the thread on taxation. The tiered income tax structure seems to be a major source of heartburn as it appears to punish people for being successful.
Let’s see what taxes are used to pay for: infrastructure, security, social services etc. Let’s take the example of a road provided by the government. How do we divide that cost? We could ask everyone to pitch in equally. But the guy who doesn’t use a vehicle probably doesn’t use the road much either, causing less wear and tear than, say, a biker, and hence should probably be asked to pay less than the biker. Similarly, a biker should probably pay less than a Mini driver, who should pay less than a Taurus driver, who should pay less than a gas tanker driver. To figure out each person’s exact share, one could go to the highest granular level of looking at an individual’s use (frequency, duration, vehicle weight, tire conditions, loads etc) of each road over the lifetime of such roads. Or we could simplify this into a tiered structure: $x for walkers, $y for cars, $z for heavy vehicles…something like that.
Now let’s change the perspective further. Let’s say income tax is the cost of working or doing business in the country. Pricing theory would suggest that pricing should be value-based, not cost-based. What is the value of the usage of a road for a guy selling bananas out of his cycle-based mobile vending-shack compared to an oil company transporting gasoline? So is a flat tax really such a good idea?
Besides, it’s not quite a level playing-field anyway. While it may initially seem that the taxes are higher at higher income levels (which they theoretically are, based on the government’s own tax structure), the fact remains that the rich actually pay a smaller tax percent than most other people. One word (okay, three): capital-gains tax. Most high-income individuals have substantial chunks of their incomes coming from capital gains through investment or speculation, and that is taxed at a lower rate than “normal” income tax, creating the paradox. Not exactly fair, wouldn’t you say?
I also do not fully buy the story of an inverse linear relation between productivity and taxes – that when taxes increase, productivity decreases proportionally. Are we to believe that at zero taxation a nation would have its highest productivity and at 100% tax it would have its lowest productivity? My sense is that (and I do not yet have proof to offer for this) a plot of these two factors would look like a reverse-S curve with a curved starting tip – for the first very few points, as tax goes up, productivity will go up – counter-intuitive, in keeping with Adams’s experiment and based on non-monetary motivations. Then productivity will decline extremely slowly for increases in income tax. This will pick up speed, somewhat like an exponential curve, creating the first bend/elbow in the curve depicting the sharp decline in productivity. Not too long thereafter productivity will actually start going up for increase in tax levels – simply a function of the fact that people will HAVE TO work harder to make ends meet or maintain a lifestyle, as the case may be. Each additional percent tax would bring the productivity up a little bit less than the previous one - culminating with slope 0 at 100% tax. Just pulling numbers out of my hat, I’d say the sweet-spot lies between 20 and 30% and the steep slope between 35 and 55%, and beyond 65% people are forced to increase productivity. But again, I’m just theorizing about this, and I do not have proof for this one.
Consumption tax has gained some currency in recent discussions, but it’s no panacea either, though it does have the distinct advantage of disbanding of the IRS. In terms of answers, though, consumption tax doesn’t provide much. In fact, most of the questions remain exactly the same as in case of income tax: Should there be a flat tax? Should goods consuming rarer community resources be taxed at higher rates? Should luxury goods be taxed at higher rates than food or other essentials?
The notion that ideology can be divorced from taxation is unrealistic, to say the least.
Budgets and Deficits
As you are well aware, the national debt is now $10.6 Trillion. To put this in context, the US GDP is $13.8 Trillion. In other words, looking at it simplistically, national debt is 77% of the GDP.
Deficit financing is the kiss of death for a nation’s economy. UNLESS of course, the deficit financing is being used to build infrastructure. That’s classical economics. At the micro level, if a company leverages its capital or borrows a lot of money, it will go down in flames if instead of building capabilities it chooses to spend the entire amount on CXO salaries and “sales summits”. At the macro level, for a nation, the only good use of deficit financing is infrastructure development.
Now let’s look at a few proposals from this (completely economic) prism.
Firstly, let’s look at war. As I will argue in the Foreign Policy rants, there are no good wars, though there can be some necessary wars. Harry Truman famously said, “War profiteering is treason.” But ignoring any moralistic musings, if we view war as a purely economic enterprise, it can be argued that war does create immense opportunities for many companies – technology, logistics, fuel, etc, apart from the more obvious weaponry and ordnance ones. And since these call for big undertakings demanding big investments, these companies earn good profits, creating more jobs and pumping up the economy via the trickle-down effect.
Closer inspection would reveal this to be a myth, particularly if the war is being financed through deficits (loans). The aforementioned corporations are usually loathe to share their profits with the rest of the economy. Also, development and building or “rebuilding” takes place in the theater of war, not in America, and so American infrastructure doesn’t achieve the long-term gains either.
We can go in with an assumption that America is so important in the world that the rest of the world cannot let her economy flounder, and it may well be true (just like the US government rushed to the support of financial institutions, which it thought it couldn’t allow to fail). But consider this: even if America’s creditors were to rush to “help”, what would the cost of such assistance be? In return for its “help” the US government has practically bought ownership to several huge financial organizations. If Saudi Arabia, China and Japan were to decide to help the US, what would they end up owning?
On the other hand, consider healthcare and education. While usually not discussed as such, these are, in fact, infrastructure investments. And while deficit financing should be avoided, if there ever was a good reason to pursue deficit financing, it’s infrastructure development. A healthier, better-educated, more competent work-force is likely to provide a very encouraging business-environment.
There has been some concern that government intervention in healthcare will mess it up completely just like government intervention in almost anything does. I believe that fear is unfounded, or at least overstated. While government involvement does bring along its own set of challenges, infrastructure projects often need government support, at least initially, as the private sector is either unable or unwilling to undertake them.
In the case of healthcare, for example, while bad policy can further entangle the mess, a deliberate, rational, and intelligent government intervention could be very helpful. It is no secret that the US ranks poorly on most parameters of healthcare (from infant mortality to morbid obesity) in spite of spending the highest amount of money per head on healthcare.
One of the reasons is the unyielding focus on clinical care and the absolute disregard for preventive care. This is particularly embarrassing because not only does preventive care lead to a healthier nation, but it also costs only a fraction of clinical care – estimates have placed preventive care costs at between a tenth and a thirtieth of clinical care costs. But the current healthcare system has a vested interest in not opting for preventive care.
This is similar to the case of the electric car, where the oil companies saw it as a threat and bought out patents to the batteries, starving development and manufacturing, choking the electric car to an untimely death.
That everyone will act in his/her enlightened self-interest is, on occasion, too much to ask for. It is well-documented that there’s a multifold increase in the number of people quitting when a government bans smoking in public places. The car companies didn’t introduce seatbelts, airbags or catalytic converters until mandated by the law. And of course, there is the whole range of companies from Big tobacco to Enron et al that suggest that self-regulation doesn’t work too well either.
So whether it is universal healthcare or socialized medicine, let’s not get hung up on labels. Whatever anyone may say about communist societies, it is undeniable that most communist nations have done exceedingly well in the areas of healthcare, education, and gender equality.
Doesn’t mean that we should become communists. Just that let’s allow for the possibility that even the communists might have done something right. Let’s not leave a good solution on the table just because it came from someone we despise. The Nazis walked on their feet…doesn’t mean that we have to do handstands and walk on our hands. If there’s a good thing out there, let’s pick it up and get on with it. Let’s see what good ideas are out there and how they can be adapted to the current society, not to create a Frankenstein, but to achieve the best of both worlds.
Civil Law
Traffic fines in Finland are based on the offender’s income, unlike most countries. In fact, as some of you might remember, in 2002, a Nokia director was fined over $100,000 for driving his Harley at 45mph in a 30mph zone in Helsinki.
Now that may seem hardly fair, and actually quite harsh. Till you consider the purpose of law, that is. Is the objective of law to punish offenders or is it to reduce future offences? It is widely accepted that the former is used as a tool to reach the latter objective, which serves as the philosophy behind law.
That being the case, a $100 fine can certainly discourage someone earning $30,000 a year, but will it deter someone who rakes in $3 million a year? While a flat $100 fine for everyone sounds fair to begin with, doesn’t it sound like the rich have the law in their pocket?
(Sidenote: Question to self – If equal income is socialism, why doesn’t equal fine reek of socialism?)
Instead of equality, if we are looking for equitability and deterrence, then wouldn’t it make more sense to impose fines based on the hardship imposed on the individual by such a fine? Of course, there are many ways an income-based fine regime can be implemented. For instance, one way is to fine everybody X days’ worth of their yearly income for each Y mph exceeded beyond speed limit. For instance, one may have to part with 2 days’ worth of income for every 5mph beyond speed limit – so if one were to be caught doing 68mph in a 50mph zone, they could say goodbye to 8 days’ income.
But even in that case I could be argued that the rich get off relatively easily, for to a rich person a week’s salary, however big, may mean just an annoying inconvenience, for a poor person, it could mean inability to purchase necessities – not quite an equal amount of hardship then, is it? And thus we could move on to a sterner penalty for the richer folk – either on an exponential sort of curve or on a step curve. And my guess is that one could argue on without conclusion till the cows come home which specific pattern is the most equitable.
Well, it seems that we aren’t looking for equitability after all; we are looking for stability in the society. In other words, we are looking for something that is considered fair by a large majority of people, if not by all the people. We are looking for an envy-free solution.
In that context, practically even the flat $100 solution works remarkably well AS LONG AS the über-rich “behave themselves”. If Mr. Richie Rich decides to flaunt his wealth and flout traffic rules speeding throughout the day and paying 20 traffic tickets because the cost is just too low for him, then that would breed unrest and “envy”.
Economics and patriotism (and bailouts)
American companies are going down. Ford and GM are crown jewels of American enterprise. One should be patriotic and support these all-American companies by opting for cars sold by them. That’s the party line anyway.
But what were these companies doing when America needed them? Turns out, that instead of helping America in her times of need (e.g. – WWII), these companies indulged in blatant opportunism and what can only be described as treachery. It wasn’t the Coca-Cola sort of opportunism either. In case of Coke, The Coca-Cola Company and its German subsidiary each supported its nation’s war effort and defense forces.
In America, Robert Woodruff made a point of supporting US troops. So metal cans were introduced to meet their needs. In 1941, when the US entered the war, Woodruff decreed, "See that every man in uniform gets a bottle of Coca Cola for 5 cents wherever he is and whatever the cost to the company".
Coca Cola (GmbH) under Max Keith, of course, sponsored the 1936 Olympics. When the export of Coca-Cola syrup to Germany was banned after US entered the war, Coke GmbH created a new soda called Fanta, and kept raking in the cash.
It is understandable (though not condonable) that businesses may be concerned only with profits and may not have loyalty to any particular countries (besides, a bottle of Coke never killed anybody). Of course, that by itself should be enough to hold them accountable for their losses just like they enjoy their gains by themselves.
But in the case of Ford and GM, there’s more. It is a well-known fact that Ford and GM factories in Germany retooled to produce war machinery for the Nazis, while at the same time Alfred Sloan and Henry Ford fought the US government tooth and nail not to retool to help the American army. And after the German plants were bombed by US military, these organizations claimed compensation from the US government.
(Similarly, during the Vietnam war, when an army strike to clear the VC caused damage to a rubber plantation, the owner Goodyear sued the US government)
And now the US government is supposed to bail them out?
Buy American (cars)? No thanks! Even in terms of economics, it is far more patriotic to buy a Toyota manufactured in Texas than a Ford from Mexico.
Freedom of Speech, etc.
This doesn’t really have much to do with economics or economic systems. But media freedom is, correctly or incorrectly, usually a property understood to be closely associated with capitalist economies, and so I decided to slip this one in.
In this respect, the propaganda-press societies and free-press societies are not as different as they may seem at first glance. What’s the difference between having a single government-owned TV channel airing propaganda, and 200 privately-owned news channels parroting government-speak (or sometimes election campaign-speak), using not only exactly the same talking points, but often even the same words and phrases? The latter is actually the more powerful form of control due to the illusion of choice and freedom.
Of course, I am thankful for the Internet and fringe channels which still provide alternative avenues for independent inquiry by curious minds. But in the real world, doesn’t a large majority get its world-view from the medium of their choice? In a sort of circular relationship, most of us go to news sources which we believe would reinforce or validate our preconceived notions, and then allow these sources to cement those notions. Ask a random person in the street a question about any of the major issues, and there’s a good chance that (s)he will repeat, word for word, the commentary of the so-called analysts from his/her favorite channel.
Fox News has often been made the punching bag for media-bias, but the truth is that there is a reason it came into existence and became popular in the first instance. While it is fashionable to say that “reality has a liberal bias” or “mainstream media doesn’t have a liberal bias; it has a ratings bias”, it cannot, in good conscience, be denied that a majority of mainstream-media professionals have liberal leanings and that probably had an influence on the editorializing, at least till the time Fox News came into existence. There was an underserved market, and Murdoch was astute enough to identify and fulfill that need, making the channel so popular. I would have thanked God for Fox News to show us the other side of the picture.
The problem with Fox News is not that it has a conservative bias, or that it claims not to have a bias in spite of that, but that it lacks credibility – one cannot be sure that they will adhere to any levels of journalistic integrity. Spin, in terms of perspective on facts is fine, but the problem arises when someone starts misrepresenting facts or outright lying. Fox's big hitters are Bull O’Reilly (2 Peabody awards etc), Sean Hannity (Harlem school vouchers etc etc), and Ann Coulter (NYT & Daytona etc etc etc etc). Now NYT has had its share of liars, but at that organization, that sort of thing gets you fired.
(Not that MSNBC is far superior in putting a sportscaster pretending to be a journalist in its “chief analyst” chair)
(Because of the slight ambiguity in terminology, I want to specify that by using the term “capitalism” I refer to the whole concept of “free-market economy”)
Allow me to begin by saying that I started off as an Ayn Rand capitalist, and I am not ashamed to admit that. There is something enticing about “being in control of your own destiny”.
It is just so ridiculously clear, sensible and logical that if everyone takes care of himself/herself, then the whole society is taken care of. On the other hand, when there are community resources and community accountabilities (as opposed to individual ones), irresponsible waste is inevitable. That makes perfect intuitive sense.
But capitalism kills the capitalist ideal just the way communism kills the communist ideal. The corporation, that towering achievement of modern capitalism, can be credited with much of the success of capitalism. At the same time, by separating ownership from management, and further by turning the focus of management from long-term goals to quarter-to-quarter thinking, the corporation fosters an environment where the capitalist ideal can die a silent death.
And while the Republicans are correctly blaming President William J Clinton’s administration for a large part of the current crisis, what they forget to mention is that irrespective of the party in power, it was the policy of laissez faire that brought the stack of cards down. (Except for Republicans like Gov Palin, of course, who seem to have no qualms about saying, “Government, get out of my way” and “we need more regulation and oversight” in the same breath.)
Alan Greenspan recently talked about a “flaw” that he discovered in his philosophy. If one looks past the jargon, he essentially said that he did not account for human nature, and that left to their own devices people and corporations can act unethically. (Not to mention the presence of perverse incentives that foster quarter-to-quarter thinking)
Coming from a pillar of modern capitalism, this statement was certainly shocking. In his seminal work, "An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations", Adam Smith certainly doesn’t make that assumption. In fact, he believes that human nature is selfishness and greed and that if we are all selfish and greedy together then things will balance out in the larger picture. Hold this thought as we will return to it in a moment.
---- From this point, your head may start shaking involuntarily, your ears may experience spontaneous combustion, and your brain may lose all focus , but I implore you to look past the labels and keep an open mind as you read on ----
It’s truly a seductive concept that a society will only function if everyone knows that if they are smarter and work harder then they’ll have a bigger paycheck, a bigger car, and a bigger house. That monetary reward proportionate to ability and effort is the primary motivation of human enterprise is an indoctrination (and therefore a bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy), and not a truism.
Otherwise, why would people write blogs, why would they participate in the Olympics, why would people create free open-source software, why would they sacrifice their today for the well-being of their children and grandchildren, and indeed, why would people go from door to door, campaigning for their favorite politician? In fact, why would any voluntary work exist at all?
Researchers from Herzberg to Adams have found that “more money” is not the only, and not even the primary, motivator for most people.
Socialism has been demonized for long in the American society, and even those that believe in some or most principles of it steer clear of the label itself. The power of branding, if you will. I’d like to submit, however, that as a concept it is not as monstrous as it is made out to be (with apologies to all who might have suffered unspeakable atrocities under communist regimes).
Think about it – capitalism is not a new concept; it has been around forever. There was a reason that socialism came into being. That reason was exploitation of the masses and extreme discrepancies in the standards of living of the rich and the poor under the capitalist formula. It is sort of okay when everyone is poor, everyone is in the same boat, and there is no other world that the people have seen. It is also okay when based on their work, people earn different levels of money, status or respect. However when these differences become so stark as to be extreme, it gives rise to a sense of “unfairness” and “envy”, and an unstable society.
Most importantly, irrespective of how smart or able we are, we stand on the shoulders of others – past and present, and it is quite arrogant, not just selfish, on our parts to claim the credit and rewards for ourselves.
Even *if* we were to agree that “every man for himself” makes perfect sense and is the fair thing to do, we would have trouble explaining the laws of inheritance. Why, if everyone gains as per their ability, should a rich person’s children end up owning massive wealth?
It is nobody’s case that socialism is a better system and we should move to it. My point is that the old models like capitalism and socialism do not reflect the ground realities on this century, and we need a paradigm-shift in our economic thinking.
Capitalism served us just fine when the markets were smaller & local, and the players were smaller. But in today’s world with unfathomable amounts of capital forming formidable barriers to entry for new players, virtually every market turning into a network-effects economy, patents & copyrights, government influence and lobbying, and complicated capital and labor flows, the invisible hand is not as potent anymore.
(Sidenote – it is quite interesting that the free-market advocates are not vociferously demanding the opening up of US-Mexico border a la intra-EU borders to allow for free flow of labor)
The fact is that whether one worships analytical techniques like Game Theory, or touchy feely leadership of Stephen Covey, it is quite clear that when individuals work towards a common goal everyone benefits more (and the pie is bigger), as opposed to the common capitalist belief that if individuals work for themselves, individuals benefit in an economically-efficient solution. And this particular brand of philosophy is not a part of either of the conventional economic models. We need something radical, something pathbreaking, something that can create win-win situations and an “envy-free” society.
Am I offering solutions? Unfortunately not. Not yet anyway. In any case, this issue is probably for minds sharper than mine. But in the meantime, it may be a good idea to use a hybrid of systems – instead of getting ideologically married to one system or the other, we could cherry-pick the items we like from all available systems, and work with that.
Taxes
I followed with interest the thread on taxation. The tiered income tax structure seems to be a major source of heartburn as it appears to punish people for being successful.
Let’s see what taxes are used to pay for: infrastructure, security, social services etc. Let’s take the example of a road provided by the government. How do we divide that cost? We could ask everyone to pitch in equally. But the guy who doesn’t use a vehicle probably doesn’t use the road much either, causing less wear and tear than, say, a biker, and hence should probably be asked to pay less than the biker. Similarly, a biker should probably pay less than a Mini driver, who should pay less than a Taurus driver, who should pay less than a gas tanker driver. To figure out each person’s exact share, one could go to the highest granular level of looking at an individual’s use (frequency, duration, vehicle weight, tire conditions, loads etc) of each road over the lifetime of such roads. Or we could simplify this into a tiered structure: $x for walkers, $y for cars, $z for heavy vehicles…something like that.
Now let’s change the perspective further. Let’s say income tax is the cost of working or doing business in the country. Pricing theory would suggest that pricing should be value-based, not cost-based. What is the value of the usage of a road for a guy selling bananas out of his cycle-based mobile vending-shack compared to an oil company transporting gasoline? So is a flat tax really such a good idea?
Besides, it’s not quite a level playing-field anyway. While it may initially seem that the taxes are higher at higher income levels (which they theoretically are, based on the government’s own tax structure), the fact remains that the rich actually pay a smaller tax percent than most other people. One word (okay, three): capital-gains tax. Most high-income individuals have substantial chunks of their incomes coming from capital gains through investment or speculation, and that is taxed at a lower rate than “normal” income tax, creating the paradox. Not exactly fair, wouldn’t you say?
I also do not fully buy the story of an inverse linear relation between productivity and taxes – that when taxes increase, productivity decreases proportionally. Are we to believe that at zero taxation a nation would have its highest productivity and at 100% tax it would have its lowest productivity? My sense is that (and I do not yet have proof to offer for this) a plot of these two factors would look like a reverse-S curve with a curved starting tip – for the first very few points, as tax goes up, productivity will go up – counter-intuitive, in keeping with Adams’s experiment and based on non-monetary motivations. Then productivity will decline extremely slowly for increases in income tax. This will pick up speed, somewhat like an exponential curve, creating the first bend/elbow in the curve depicting the sharp decline in productivity. Not too long thereafter productivity will actually start going up for increase in tax levels – simply a function of the fact that people will HAVE TO work harder to make ends meet or maintain a lifestyle, as the case may be. Each additional percent tax would bring the productivity up a little bit less than the previous one - culminating with slope 0 at 100% tax. Just pulling numbers out of my hat, I’d say the sweet-spot lies between 20 and 30% and the steep slope between 35 and 55%, and beyond 65% people are forced to increase productivity. But again, I’m just theorizing about this, and I do not have proof for this one.
Consumption tax has gained some currency in recent discussions, but it’s no panacea either, though it does have the distinct advantage of disbanding of the IRS. In terms of answers, though, consumption tax doesn’t provide much. In fact, most of the questions remain exactly the same as in case of income tax: Should there be a flat tax? Should goods consuming rarer community resources be taxed at higher rates? Should luxury goods be taxed at higher rates than food or other essentials?
The notion that ideology can be divorced from taxation is unrealistic, to say the least.
Budgets and Deficits
As you are well aware, the national debt is now $10.6 Trillion. To put this in context, the US GDP is $13.8 Trillion. In other words, looking at it simplistically, national debt is 77% of the GDP.
Deficit financing is the kiss of death for a nation’s economy. UNLESS of course, the deficit financing is being used to build infrastructure. That’s classical economics. At the micro level, if a company leverages its capital or borrows a lot of money, it will go down in flames if instead of building capabilities it chooses to spend the entire amount on CXO salaries and “sales summits”. At the macro level, for a nation, the only good use of deficit financing is infrastructure development.
Now let’s look at a few proposals from this (completely economic) prism.
Firstly, let’s look at war. As I will argue in the Foreign Policy rants, there are no good wars, though there can be some necessary wars. Harry Truman famously said, “War profiteering is treason.” But ignoring any moralistic musings, if we view war as a purely economic enterprise, it can be argued that war does create immense opportunities for many companies – technology, logistics, fuel, etc, apart from the more obvious weaponry and ordnance ones. And since these call for big undertakings demanding big investments, these companies earn good profits, creating more jobs and pumping up the economy via the trickle-down effect.
Closer inspection would reveal this to be a myth, particularly if the war is being financed through deficits (loans). The aforementioned corporations are usually loathe to share their profits with the rest of the economy. Also, development and building or “rebuilding” takes place in the theater of war, not in America, and so American infrastructure doesn’t achieve the long-term gains either.
We can go in with an assumption that America is so important in the world that the rest of the world cannot let her economy flounder, and it may well be true (just like the US government rushed to the support of financial institutions, which it thought it couldn’t allow to fail). But consider this: even if America’s creditors were to rush to “help”, what would the cost of such assistance be? In return for its “help” the US government has practically bought ownership to several huge financial organizations. If Saudi Arabia, China and Japan were to decide to help the US, what would they end up owning?
On the other hand, consider healthcare and education. While usually not discussed as such, these are, in fact, infrastructure investments. And while deficit financing should be avoided, if there ever was a good reason to pursue deficit financing, it’s infrastructure development. A healthier, better-educated, more competent work-force is likely to provide a very encouraging business-environment.
There has been some concern that government intervention in healthcare will mess it up completely just like government intervention in almost anything does. I believe that fear is unfounded, or at least overstated. While government involvement does bring along its own set of challenges, infrastructure projects often need government support, at least initially, as the private sector is either unable or unwilling to undertake them.
In the case of healthcare, for example, while bad policy can further entangle the mess, a deliberate, rational, and intelligent government intervention could be very helpful. It is no secret that the US ranks poorly on most parameters of healthcare (from infant mortality to morbid obesity) in spite of spending the highest amount of money per head on healthcare.
One of the reasons is the unyielding focus on clinical care and the absolute disregard for preventive care. This is particularly embarrassing because not only does preventive care lead to a healthier nation, but it also costs only a fraction of clinical care – estimates have placed preventive care costs at between a tenth and a thirtieth of clinical care costs. But the current healthcare system has a vested interest in not opting for preventive care.
This is similar to the case of the electric car, where the oil companies saw it as a threat and bought out patents to the batteries, starving development and manufacturing, choking the electric car to an untimely death.
That everyone will act in his/her enlightened self-interest is, on occasion, too much to ask for. It is well-documented that there’s a multifold increase in the number of people quitting when a government bans smoking in public places. The car companies didn’t introduce seatbelts, airbags or catalytic converters until mandated by the law. And of course, there is the whole range of companies from Big tobacco to Enron et al that suggest that self-regulation doesn’t work too well either.
So whether it is universal healthcare or socialized medicine, let’s not get hung up on labels. Whatever anyone may say about communist societies, it is undeniable that most communist nations have done exceedingly well in the areas of healthcare, education, and gender equality.
Doesn’t mean that we should become communists. Just that let’s allow for the possibility that even the communists might have done something right. Let’s not leave a good solution on the table just because it came from someone we despise. The Nazis walked on their feet…doesn’t mean that we have to do handstands and walk on our hands. If there’s a good thing out there, let’s pick it up and get on with it. Let’s see what good ideas are out there and how they can be adapted to the current society, not to create a Frankenstein, but to achieve the best of both worlds.
Civil Law
Traffic fines in Finland are based on the offender’s income, unlike most countries. In fact, as some of you might remember, in 2002, a Nokia director was fined over $100,000 for driving his Harley at 45mph in a 30mph zone in Helsinki.
Now that may seem hardly fair, and actually quite harsh. Till you consider the purpose of law, that is. Is the objective of law to punish offenders or is it to reduce future offences? It is widely accepted that the former is used as a tool to reach the latter objective, which serves as the philosophy behind law.
That being the case, a $100 fine can certainly discourage someone earning $30,000 a year, but will it deter someone who rakes in $3 million a year? While a flat $100 fine for everyone sounds fair to begin with, doesn’t it sound like the rich have the law in their pocket?
(Sidenote: Question to self – If equal income is socialism, why doesn’t equal fine reek of socialism?)
Instead of equality, if we are looking for equitability and deterrence, then wouldn’t it make more sense to impose fines based on the hardship imposed on the individual by such a fine? Of course, there are many ways an income-based fine regime can be implemented. For instance, one way is to fine everybody X days’ worth of their yearly income for each Y mph exceeded beyond speed limit. For instance, one may have to part with 2 days’ worth of income for every 5mph beyond speed limit – so if one were to be caught doing 68mph in a 50mph zone, they could say goodbye to 8 days’ income.
But even in that case I could be argued that the rich get off relatively easily, for to a rich person a week’s salary, however big, may mean just an annoying inconvenience, for a poor person, it could mean inability to purchase necessities – not quite an equal amount of hardship then, is it? And thus we could move on to a sterner penalty for the richer folk – either on an exponential sort of curve or on a step curve. And my guess is that one could argue on without conclusion till the cows come home which specific pattern is the most equitable.
Well, it seems that we aren’t looking for equitability after all; we are looking for stability in the society. In other words, we are looking for something that is considered fair by a large majority of people, if not by all the people. We are looking for an envy-free solution.
In that context, practically even the flat $100 solution works remarkably well AS LONG AS the über-rich “behave themselves”. If Mr. Richie Rich decides to flaunt his wealth and flout traffic rules speeding throughout the day and paying 20 traffic tickets because the cost is just too low for him, then that would breed unrest and “envy”.
Economics and patriotism (and bailouts)
American companies are going down. Ford and GM are crown jewels of American enterprise. One should be patriotic and support these all-American companies by opting for cars sold by them. That’s the party line anyway.
But what were these companies doing when America needed them? Turns out, that instead of helping America in her times of need (e.g. – WWII), these companies indulged in blatant opportunism and what can only be described as treachery. It wasn’t the Coca-Cola sort of opportunism either. In case of Coke, The Coca-Cola Company and its German subsidiary each supported its nation’s war effort and defense forces.
In America, Robert Woodruff made a point of supporting US troops. So metal cans were introduced to meet their needs. In 1941, when the US entered the war, Woodruff decreed, "See that every man in uniform gets a bottle of Coca Cola for 5 cents wherever he is and whatever the cost to the company".
Coca Cola (GmbH) under Max Keith, of course, sponsored the 1936 Olympics. When the export of Coca-Cola syrup to Germany was banned after US entered the war, Coke GmbH created a new soda called Fanta, and kept raking in the cash.
It is understandable (though not condonable) that businesses may be concerned only with profits and may not have loyalty to any particular countries (besides, a bottle of Coke never killed anybody). Of course, that by itself should be enough to hold them accountable for their losses just like they enjoy their gains by themselves.
But in the case of Ford and GM, there’s more. It is a well-known fact that Ford and GM factories in Germany retooled to produce war machinery for the Nazis, while at the same time Alfred Sloan and Henry Ford fought the US government tooth and nail not to retool to help the American army. And after the German plants were bombed by US military, these organizations claimed compensation from the US government.
(Similarly, during the Vietnam war, when an army strike to clear the VC caused damage to a rubber plantation, the owner Goodyear sued the US government)
And now the US government is supposed to bail them out?
Buy American (cars)? No thanks! Even in terms of economics, it is far more patriotic to buy a Toyota manufactured in Texas than a Ford from Mexico.
Freedom of Speech, etc.
This doesn’t really have much to do with economics or economic systems. But media freedom is, correctly or incorrectly, usually a property understood to be closely associated with capitalist economies, and so I decided to slip this one in.
In this respect, the propaganda-press societies and free-press societies are not as different as they may seem at first glance. What’s the difference between having a single government-owned TV channel airing propaganda, and 200 privately-owned news channels parroting government-speak (or sometimes election campaign-speak), using not only exactly the same talking points, but often even the same words and phrases? The latter is actually the more powerful form of control due to the illusion of choice and freedom.
Of course, I am thankful for the Internet and fringe channels which still provide alternative avenues for independent inquiry by curious minds. But in the real world, doesn’t a large majority get its world-view from the medium of their choice? In a sort of circular relationship, most of us go to news sources which we believe would reinforce or validate our preconceived notions, and then allow these sources to cement those notions. Ask a random person in the street a question about any of the major issues, and there’s a good chance that (s)he will repeat, word for word, the commentary of the so-called analysts from his/her favorite channel.
Fox News has often been made the punching bag for media-bias, but the truth is that there is a reason it came into existence and became popular in the first instance. While it is fashionable to say that “reality has a liberal bias” or “mainstream media doesn’t have a liberal bias; it has a ratings bias”, it cannot, in good conscience, be denied that a majority of mainstream-media professionals have liberal leanings and that probably had an influence on the editorializing, at least till the time Fox News came into existence. There was an underserved market, and Murdoch was astute enough to identify and fulfill that need, making the channel so popular. I would have thanked God for Fox News to show us the other side of the picture.
The problem with Fox News is not that it has a conservative bias, or that it claims not to have a bias in spite of that, but that it lacks credibility – one cannot be sure that they will adhere to any levels of journalistic integrity. Spin, in terms of perspective on facts is fine, but the problem arises when someone starts misrepresenting facts or outright lying. Fox's big hitters are Bull O’Reilly (2 Peabody awards etc), Sean Hannity (Harlem school vouchers etc etc), and Ann Coulter (NYT & Daytona etc etc etc etc). Now NYT has had its share of liars, but at that organization, that sort of thing gets you fired.
(Not that MSNBC is far superior in putting a sportscaster pretending to be a journalist in its “chief analyst” chair)
Tuesday, November 04, 2008
Rants 1 - On Politics
Hopefully this is the last day of 24-hour politics that has had a 360-degree cobweb around us for almost 2 years. The 2 years have been very interesting, of course.
It is very intriguing that the party professing laissez-faire economic policies favors government intervention on social issues while the party in favor of government supervision actually supports a more “hands off” approach on social issues. It is quite clear, to me at least, that neither party believes in either “laissez faire” or “government mentoring” as a matter of principle. It is more about the voter groups that they have sewn together and what the top concerns of those groups are, however incompatible those demands may be at just one higher level of abstraction.
The only candidate to actually stick to “matters of principle” in this election season was Congressman Ron Paul of Texas, who ended up being a superflop in the Republican primaries.
In this context, I find it quite funny that the “right wing” party is represented by the red color (red states-blue states), which is also the color associated with communism (Red October, Red China, even Red Dawn).
This election has been called “historic” so many times based on the gender or race of individual candidates that many nations watch America bemusedly. Many of them are surprised that there’s (or at least was, till August) even so much talk about the gender or race of the candidates. Margaret Thatcher didn’t shock Britain probably because they had had a Queen for a little while, but even “backward” nations like Ukraine, Bolivia, Panama, Dominica and Sri Lanka had had female premiers by 1980.
India, yes that other big democracy, has had Presidents from Muslim (13.4% of population), Sikh (1.9% of population), and agnostic communities, in addition to the majority Hindu community, all without any hoopla. And yes, female too. Incidentally, in terms of party politics, of the 12 Indian presidents elected so far, 8 are identified as “Independents”.
But then again, India is a parliamentary democracy. So Prime Ministers are “more important” than Presidents. What about them? Hindu upper castes, Muslim, Sikh, Female, North Indian, South Indian, and, in a country often criticized for its legacy of caste-system, Hindu backward castes. In fact the scenario presented by the last election was very interesting: In a Hindu-majority country, a foreign-born Christian lady led her party to victory and asked a Sikh to be the Prime Minister, who was sworn-in by a Muslim President.
The point here is not to wax about how great India is, but that the candidates’ race, gender, religion, etc. should really be non-issues in the most advanced country in the world, and non-issues should not get much attention, leave alone such widespread media coverage, discussion and debate.
On that note, there has also been a lot of noise about Obama’s middle name, and the insinuation that he may be Muslim. The response from the Obama campaign, the Democratic party, almost all commentators with a pen or microphone, and Sen McCain has been that this simply is not true. It is a shame that these people haven’t stopped to add, “So what?” as in “No he is not Muslim. And if he were, so what?” You may like a candidate and his policies or not, but where and how exactly does the personal matter of faith come in?
And, as I tried to point out in the "Hamas endorses Obama..." post, unless a candidate is soliciting, seeking, acknowledging or honoring an endorsement from a person or organization, why should it matter who endorses him or her, when we clearly are unable to know the motives?
And about the candidates themselves:
We have one candidate who voted “present” as a state senator 129 times. On one hand this can be interpreted as apathy, and on the other as a meditated and measured attempt to not let real opinions known, and keep the option to choose popular positions later open.
On the other side, we have someone who ranked #894 out of 899 people graduating from Annapolis in 1958, crashed 5 planes (Aug 58, Jun 60, Nov 65, Jul 67, Oct 67…his first combat mission began summer 67), and in the past 2 years has abandoned almost everything (“agents of intolerance”, Roe v Wade, Tax cuts) that set him apart and earned him the maverick reputation that he’s fighting on.
While one has no foreign policy experience, the other claims he knows “how to win wars” without actually having won any war.
In politics one comes to expect the sin of spin, but one hopes that half-truths and misrepresentations, at least, can be avoided. But evidently the candidates themselves engage in the muckraking.
Obama says that McCain wants troops to remain in Iraq for 100 years, without disclosing that at the town hall meeting, McCain was referring to peace-time presence, not combat.
While McCain goes around telling everyone that Obama “told Georgia to exercise restraint” without bothering to mention that Obama actually asked “Russia and Georgia to exercise restraint”.
So what's my point? Just that if instead of making sure that we are talking mostly about issues and ensuring that our "well reasoned" discussions are "fact based", we see most of the discussions surrounding non-issues, misinterpretations and falsehoods, then something needs a little fixing.
Anyway, like 8 years ago, we are about to get a Harvard-educated president who promises change, who promises to elevate the level of discourse in Washington, to reach across party lines, and to exercise a non-interventionist foreign policy. Let’s see how the experiment works out this time around.
It is very intriguing that the party professing laissez-faire economic policies favors government intervention on social issues while the party in favor of government supervision actually supports a more “hands off” approach on social issues. It is quite clear, to me at least, that neither party believes in either “laissez faire” or “government mentoring” as a matter of principle. It is more about the voter groups that they have sewn together and what the top concerns of those groups are, however incompatible those demands may be at just one higher level of abstraction.
The only candidate to actually stick to “matters of principle” in this election season was Congressman Ron Paul of Texas, who ended up being a superflop in the Republican primaries.
In this context, I find it quite funny that the “right wing” party is represented by the red color (red states-blue states), which is also the color associated with communism (Red October, Red China, even Red Dawn).
This election has been called “historic” so many times based on the gender or race of individual candidates that many nations watch America bemusedly. Many of them are surprised that there’s (or at least was, till August) even so much talk about the gender or race of the candidates. Margaret Thatcher didn’t shock Britain probably because they had had a Queen for a little while, but even “backward” nations like Ukraine, Bolivia, Panama, Dominica and Sri Lanka had had female premiers by 1980.
India, yes that other big democracy, has had Presidents from Muslim (13.4% of population), Sikh (1.9% of population), and agnostic communities, in addition to the majority Hindu community, all without any hoopla. And yes, female too. Incidentally, in terms of party politics, of the 12 Indian presidents elected so far, 8 are identified as “Independents”.
But then again, India is a parliamentary democracy. So Prime Ministers are “more important” than Presidents. What about them? Hindu upper castes, Muslim, Sikh, Female, North Indian, South Indian, and, in a country often criticized for its legacy of caste-system, Hindu backward castes. In fact the scenario presented by the last election was very interesting: In a Hindu-majority country, a foreign-born Christian lady led her party to victory and asked a Sikh to be the Prime Minister, who was sworn-in by a Muslim President.
The point here is not to wax about how great India is, but that the candidates’ race, gender, religion, etc. should really be non-issues in the most advanced country in the world, and non-issues should not get much attention, leave alone such widespread media coverage, discussion and debate.
On that note, there has also been a lot of noise about Obama’s middle name, and the insinuation that he may be Muslim. The response from the Obama campaign, the Democratic party, almost all commentators with a pen or microphone, and Sen McCain has been that this simply is not true. It is a shame that these people haven’t stopped to add, “So what?” as in “No he is not Muslim. And if he were, so what?” You may like a candidate and his policies or not, but where and how exactly does the personal matter of faith come in?
And, as I tried to point out in the "Hamas endorses Obama..." post, unless a candidate is soliciting, seeking, acknowledging or honoring an endorsement from a person or organization, why should it matter who endorses him or her, when we clearly are unable to know the motives?
And about the candidates themselves:
We have one candidate who voted “present” as a state senator 129 times. On one hand this can be interpreted as apathy, and on the other as a meditated and measured attempt to not let real opinions known, and keep the option to choose popular positions later open.
On the other side, we have someone who ranked #894 out of 899 people graduating from Annapolis in 1958, crashed 5 planes (Aug 58, Jun 60, Nov 65, Jul 67, Oct 67…his first combat mission began summer 67), and in the past 2 years has abandoned almost everything (“agents of intolerance”, Roe v Wade, Tax cuts) that set him apart and earned him the maverick reputation that he’s fighting on.
While one has no foreign policy experience, the other claims he knows “how to win wars” without actually having won any war.
In politics one comes to expect the sin of spin, but one hopes that half-truths and misrepresentations, at least, can be avoided. But evidently the candidates themselves engage in the muckraking.
Obama says that McCain wants troops to remain in Iraq for 100 years, without disclosing that at the town hall meeting, McCain was referring to peace-time presence, not combat.
While McCain goes around telling everyone that Obama “told Georgia to exercise restraint” without bothering to mention that Obama actually asked “Russia and Georgia to exercise restraint”.
So what's my point? Just that if instead of making sure that we are talking mostly about issues and ensuring that our "well reasoned" discussions are "fact based", we see most of the discussions surrounding non-issues, misinterpretations and falsehoods, then something needs a little fixing.
Anyway, like 8 years ago, we are about to get a Harvard-educated president who promises change, who promises to elevate the level of discourse in Washington, to reach across party lines, and to exercise a non-interventionist foreign policy. Let’s see how the experiment works out this time around.
Sunday, November 02, 2008
Hamas endorses Obama as well...
Poster A
Poster N
Poster A
the maVerick
Poster S
Poster A
(in response to the maVerick's post)
Poster S
the maVerick
Poster S
the maVerick
Poster S
After this, I decided that there was no point in getting into a petty and meaningless debate with A, who seems to equate every discussion about any issue to an Obama endorsement, and that I should start other threads on specific issues.
I pretended that following the wind of endorsements was a legitimate way to view a political candidate long enough to find this one below. One thing that struck me as interesting was that this endorsement came from a group not interested in claiming that government was the proper and most efficient mechanism to facilitate a massive wealth transfer. Also somewhat notable though is their willingness to look past inexperience....
April 16, 2008
Hamas Endorses Obama
On Sunday, Aaron Klein and John Batchelor interviewed Ahmed Yousef, chief political adviser to the Prime Minister of Hamas, on WABC radio. The interview produced a scoop which, for some reason, has not been widely publicized: Hamas has endorsed Barack Obama for President. Yousef said, "We like Mr. Obama and we hope he will win the election." Why? "He has a vision to change America." Maybe Yousef has some insight into what Obama means by all these vague references to "change."
Of course, Hamas's taste in American presidents is suspect. Yousef also described Jimmy Carter, who was about to pay a call on Hamas when the interview was taped, as "this noble man" who "did an excellent job as President."
Yousef was asked about Obama's condemnation of Carter's visit with Hamas, but didn't seem troubled by it. Hamas, he says, understands American politics; this is the election season, and everyone wants to sound like a friend of Israel. Nevertheless, he hopes that the Democrats will change American policies when they take office.
(This information was found on Powerlineblog.com, so you know it's true)
Poster N
FactCheck.org is our friend, especially in dealing with all that stuff we get in partisan emails over those Internets:
http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/did_hamas_endorse_barack_obama.html
FactCheck is a service of the non-partisan Annenberg Center for Public Policy at UPenn.
http://www.factcheck.org/about/
Poster A
I’ll make a deal with you... If you can assume that it was not partisan emails that led to my questioning Barack Obama’s ability to lead, I’ll assume that your support (or apparent support) of Obama was not generated by the legion of bumper-stickered hybrids that pass us by on the highway. (I don’t know if you’ve heard but apparently a village in Texas has lost its idiot. It’s true, a 22 year old who also seems to be a fan of “Whirled Peas” told me so.)
I am not sure if you pasted the link to factcheck to draw notice to the distinction made between “endorsing” a candidate and simply making it known who one would like to win. I would hope that we are not going to split hairs in the face of an issue that would appear to be worthy of a potentially enjoyable debate.
Instead, I suppose that you pasted the link as a way of saying that you felt that Hamas’ apparent “retraction” of support was meaningful enough to counterbalance their original statement. I would argue that, after witnessing the traction that McCain was getting with the Hamas statement, the retraction was largely disingenuous. I can’t be sure of that, afterall the supposed retraction did come after Obama had made some public statements in opposition of Hamas.
It is interesting to me that Hamas did not know where Obama stood before originally supporting him. I have witnessed a lot of that lately. In fact, that concept is the reason why I am hesitant to support Whirled Peas. I do not believe that Barack Obama’s limited experience and non-existent list of accomplishments make him worthy of so much support. Hence, outside of value investing, I don’t care what Warren Buffet thinks. (Although, I have to admit that I haven’t respected Warren Buffet to the same degree since hearing his views on the estate tax.)
It was my original intention to question the concept of celebrating endorsements in that manner, especially when you consider that this forum is sponsored by an institution of higher learning. In my opinion those endorsements are irrelevant because the endorser is not here to defend their opinion under any type of scrutiny, or witness the quality of the scrutiny. We are, and therefore this is an appropriate forum to express opinions.
I think it’s far more important to think about why people are supporting the Illinois Senator and citizen of the world. What is it that they believe? (“Change” is simply not an acceptable answer to that question.) Do they think that the primary responsibility of the President of the United States is to give speeches? Does supporting someone from a race that has been seemingly under-represented in the past make them feel better about themselves? Are they making inferences about this man’s position before actually hearing this man’s position? It seems to me that Hamas may have been guilty of that. Are they willing to completely overlook a lack of experience just to feel personally vindicated in their hatred for George Bush?
So, with all due respect, why do you support Barack Obama? I’m ready and willing to listen, I just haven’t heard anything of substance yet.
the maVerick
Hamas vs Al Qaeda....hmm....
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/22/al-qaeda-supporters-endor_n_136779.html
Al-Qaeda Supporters Endorse McCain
WASHINGTON — Al-Qaida supporters suggested in a Web site message this week they would welcome a pre-election terror attack on the U.S. as a way to usher in a McCain presidency.
The message, posted Monday on the password-protected al-Hesbah Web site, said if al-Qaida wants to exhaust the United States militarily and economically, "impetuous" Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain is the better choice because he is more likely to continue the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
"This requires presence of an impetuous American leader such as McCain, who pledged to continue the war till the last American soldier," the message said. "Then, al-Qaida will have to support McCain in the coming elections so that he continues the failing march of his predecessor, Bush."
SITE Intelligence Group, based in Bethesda, Md., monitors the Web site and translated the message.
"If al-Qaida carries out a big operation against American interests," the message said, "this act will be support of McCain because it will push the Americans deliberately to vote for McCain so that he takes revenge for them against al-Qaida. Al-Qaida then will succeed in exhausting America till its last year in it."
Mark Salter, a senior McCain adviser, said he had heard about the Web site chatter but had no immediate comment.
The message is credited to a frequent and apparently respected contributor named Muhammad Haafid. However, Haafid is not believed to have a direct affiliation with al-Qaida plans or knowledge of its operations, according to SITE.
SITE senior analyst Adam Raisman said this message caught SITE's attention because there has been little other chatter on the forums about the U.S. election.
SITE was struck by the message's detailed analysis _ and apparent jubilation _ about American financial woes.
"What we try to do is get the pulse of the jihadist community," Raisman said. "And it's about the financial crisis."
Al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden issued a videotape just four days before the 2004 U.S. presidential election directly addressing the American people.
Poster S
Game theory would suggest that *if* the source cited in the previous email is a reliable one, the subjects in question are likely to be taking that position to encourage people to *not* vote for that person because they really do not want him in office. The ol' reverse psychology thing that we all learned as children.
What is perhaps a little more reliable is the polling of Eurasian nations indicates that not only do they favor Obama but they desire a weaker US. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0908/13312.html Russia, who just repeated its 1920s invasion of Georgia considers the US a force for evil. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/uselection2008/2049528/Majority-of-Russians-consider-United-States-a-force-for-evil-US-election-2008.html Furthermore, European nations have a historical tendency toward embracing socialism so they would more easily identify with a political candidate who espouses socialistic policy which would be Obama.
Although this is speculation on my part, I would suggest that most people view Sen. Obama relative to President Clinton similar to the way that Sen. McCain is being tied to President Bush. Clearly the foreign policies of the Clinton administration were looked upon favorably by foreign nations hostile, or at least unfriendly to the US.
The Clinton administration's response to the WTC bombing in 1993 was nearly nonexistent (most people forget that we were attacked there before 9/11 so the "How could this happen?" in 2001 question is sadly laughable), the USS Cole, bombings of US embassies in Africa Dar es Salaam, Tanzania and Nairobi, Kenya (all linked directly to al Qaeda by the way),bombing of the Khobar Towers, Somalia, rejected offerings of Osama bin Laden by Sudan (two years later the embassy bombings occurred) and the toleration of years of repeated violations of the Iraqi cease-fire and UN resolutions by Saddam Hussein (which it can be argued gave Hussein reason to believe that expelling UN inspectors from Iraq would be met with a great sigh from the US rather than a second military action) all went by the boards.
It has been suggested by some that the reasoning of President Clinton was based upon a concern for his approval ratings and place in US political history. Being an intelligent man (and I do mean that, no sarcasm intended) President Clinton was likely very conscious that addressing these issues might lead to difficult if not unpopular decisions having to be made. While the latter is pure speculation and only known to President Clinton, the former are matters of historical record.
If one were to ask the question: "Who would be more likely to be assertive on US foreign policy and employ force: Obama or McCain?" one does not have to connect too many dots to arrive at Hamas' and others similarly positioned towards the US preferences for the 44th president of the US.
A very recent case in point: Obama, while vacationing in Hawaii called for Georgia to "show restraint" after being invaded by Russia. Obama's position on foreign policy seems very similar to that preceding WWII when appeasement and isolationism was popular; policies that has proven throughout history to be folly. It is interesting to note that that the general feeling among the US population was that Europe should solve it's own problems and we should not get involved which sounds eerily similar to the opinions regarding the US recent and current involvement in the Middle East. Would Obama have encouraged Poland and China to show restraint in the late 1930s? With only his potion on Georgia to go by, apparently so.
On the other hand, while President Bush said he saw a good man when he looked into Putin's eyes McCain said "When I look into his eyes, I see a K, a G and a B" and has been very vocal about his distrust of Putin and even opposed Russia's admittance to the G8. McCain made numerous trips to Georgia, called for an emergency meeting of the G7, a joint US/EU/NATO delegation to be sent to the region as well as a force to be sent to Georgia. For what their opinion is worth, The Brookings Institute supported McCain's response. The Heritage Foundation's opinion was that "The Obama campaign has had zero policy prescriptions for dealing with the most serious global crisis since the Iraq war". So it would seem that think-tank organizations with left and right leanings have a significantly more favorable opinion of Sen. McCain's response to real world crises.
That is the long-way-around but the math here is pretty straightforward. So in conclusion to this hurricane of a long-winded posting, when it comes to Obama on foreign policy I have to agree with, and I can't believe I am going to actually print this, Sen. HR Clinton. Sen. Clinton raised a question as to Sen. Obama's ability to handle that "3 a.m. phone call" to deal with a foreign policy crisis. Now it's in the record book how Sen. Obama has answered that question.
Poster A
(in response to the maVerick's post)
Well, I posted my thoughts below in hopes of truly learning why people who are quite obviously intelligent support Barack Obama. I believe that the sincerity of my request and position is made quite clear by my thoughts accompanying the post about Hamas' endorsement. I am disappointed that all I got in return was a three letter response (hmm), as if an intellectual philosophy or political ideology can be summed up in the pseudo-dramatic pause created by a “hmm”.
I truly am interested in hearing thoughtful support of a candidate who sees the federal government as the appropriate and most efficient mechanism to facilitate a significant wealth transfer. Personally, I see that philosophy as wholly damaging to the future of our country. I do believe that Barack Obama has some wonderful personal qualities. I believe that he is a good man, good husband, and good father. He is an outstanding public speaker with an admirable ability to inspire. But very clearly, his approach to our economy is the sophomoric policy of an amateur and a complete shortcut to thinking. I could be wrong, but I don’t see how or where. Unfortunately, after posting on this forum, I still don’t.
Peaceout! Enjoy the super majority and the wealth-envy run rampant!
Poster S
A, I echo most of your thoughts however I cannot say that his public political behavior suggests he has desirable personal qualities.
Case in point: Reverend Wright. Obama attended White's church for 20 years, declared White his spiritual leader and had no idea that Wright was espousing the hate speech he was? Then when the heat was on him he threw Wright under the proverbial bus. So, either Obama knew what Wright was all about all along and agrees with it or he was just using Wright for his own personal political gain (that White used his position in the community to get Obama elected to political offices is I believe generally accepted). I do not think that this is an indication that Obama has a particularly strong moral compass but does suggest strongly that he is an opportunist with only self-interest of interest. Wright himself has said as much publicly.
One need only to contrast this with McCain's choice to remain in a VC prison camp, which began 41 years ago this Sunday by the way. He suffered two broken arms a broken leg and nearly drowned as a result of the plane crash. Then, when captured by the NVA his shoulder was crushed with a rifle and he was bayonetted before being shipped to the Hanoi Hilton. He was refused medical attention and beaten during interrogations. The following year he was put into solitary confinement (where he would remain for the next two years) he was offered release but refused because of his belief in the military Code of Conduct. Following that refusal the VC initiated their torture program (which consisted of more than putting underwear on his head and taking his picture; bindings and beatings every two hours). He also had contracted dysentery and received multiple beatings on a weekly basis. All told he was there for five years six months. Subsequent to his repatriation he expressed guilt for having made an anti-American propaganda statement during 1968 to seek some relief from the torture.
In my *opinion*, that speaks about his character to a degree that is only rivaled by how strongly it contrasts with Obama's treatment of his spiritual leader of most of his adult life. Perhaps when the issue of experience arises one should consider that McCain spent nearly 300% as much time understanding the enemies of the United States on a first hand basis than Obama has spent in the US Senate. McCain refused to meet with anti-war groups and the Vietnamese government because he did not want to give them the political propaganda victory. For Obama to state that he'll sit down unconditionally with similar foreign governments demonstrates, in my *opinion*, his complete ignorance on foreign policy and is so distasteful that it is difficult to
I read a rather disturbing but not surprising article that discusses Obama supporters.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/10/23/MNEK13MLPN.DTL&type=politics&tsp=1
Some of the statements made include:
"particularly many African Americans who are voting early in huge numbers - say they just want to vote."
'"This is the opportunity of a lifetime for African Americans," she said. "I wanted to be one of the first to be counted."'
'"A lot of African Americans are voting now," Dudley said, proudly watching her brother vote from afar. "Even ones who never thought about voting in their life, they're voting now."'
Why the big turnout this time around? Obama has said little if anything significantly different than any of the previous Democrats.
Why are blacks who would otherwise never thought of voting before in their lives voting now?
Why is this the "opportunity of a lifetime for African Americans" other than the opportunity to vote for a black candidate?
One obvious conclusion to be drawn from this is that many black Americans are voting for Obama purely on the basis of race. It was interesting to see that among black voters polling shows a 90% lean toward the candidate who had the poorest qualifications, Obama (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a.A1ueaDC_ek&refer=home). It is clear that white voters do not demonstrate a similar voting pattern across either race or gender. I admit to not being a mind reader but the facts are highly suggestive. Is it possible that blacks are statistically significantly more prejudiced than whites and this is the reason for the strong support of Obama?
I ran across a rumor today that if Obama is elected Oprah will receive an ambassadorship (http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/tv_and_radio/article4999071.ece). Oprah refused to have Gov. Palin on her television program stating that "I made the decision not to use my show as a platform for any of the candidates." but curiously she had Obama on her show (http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/Story?id=5736716&page=1).
I was studying up on Obama's health care plan. It was interesting to see that included in that plan is for legislation that *requires* private-sector insurance providers to provide insurance to people without regard to issues like past and present medical condition. This sounds eerily similar to the CRA that led directly to forcing lenders to give loans to those that they would not have otherwise. So, if Obama is elected and if his plan is enacted (with a Democrat Senate and House, both of whom have approval ratings below that of President Bush by the way) that is more than a simple possibility but rather a likelihood, we may be headed for a repeat of the banking meltdown only this time in the insurance/health care industry. So for all those who think Obama will be better for the economy I think his health care plan, among other things, demonstrates not only his lack of understanding of the issues but his inability to learn from historical events. He has demonstrated an equal ineptitude where foreign policy is concerned (see previous email regarding Georgia).
If it were not for the demonstrated bias in the media, it is astonishing to me that these issues are not being raised.
Waiting for anything in the way of a reasoned, fact-based response to your question is apparently like waiting for Godot. I think the components to the answer to your question are few in number and rather obvious in light of the facts. It is interesting however that when asked to engage in a fact-based, reasoned discussion regarding support for Obama many who sing his praises simply chose to "vote present".
the maVerick
A,
Thanks for your response. I don't think I doubted the sincerity of your position and it is unfortunate that you felt that way.
If the "hmm..." seems inappropriate vehicle to convey an intellectual or political argument, the reason is that it was not and is not intended for that purpose. It was merely intended in its more usual role as an abbreviated exclamation of, "Hmm...interesting" and referred to the fact that I find it fascinating that both the presidential candidates have been endorsed by organizations classified as terrorist groups.
Based on your last sentence (and, well, your second paragraph too), I take it that you have assumed that I am a bleeding-heart liberal or at least a democrat. Well, I don't have a horse in the race. My comment was from the point of view of an innocent but engaged bystander observing the circus from the sidelines. Of course, I can understand why you would infer that I am an "Obama supporter" - it is a high-profile and bitterly fought election and anything that is not explicitly supportive of McCain can be easily interpreted as "Obama camp" propaganda. Again, my post was from the point of view of an impartial (I use the term reluctantly as I do have opinions about issues) observer.
If you'd like to have an honest discussion about economics, foreign policy, or decision making process, I am absolutely willing to do that, but this post certainly wasn't about that (as you will see if you scroll down to the previous messages...except for your humorous reference in the original email). Yes, I understand that issues often have overlaps, but this thread wasn't even about "the impact of terrorism (or war on terror) on America's economy".
S,
Yup, that makes perfect sense.
When Obama is endorsed (yeah, let's not get stuck in the semantics) by Hamas, that's a serious endorsement.
But when McCain is endorsed by Al Qaeda, it is a game theoretical strategy (well, actually, first we question the veracity of the source, but for now let's go with the hypothesis that the source is as reliable as the one in the Hamas endorsement). Obviously Al Qaeda knew that whomever they support would not get the support of the American people and hence lose the election. So they are endorsing the guy they don't want in office. Makes sense. Thanks for helping me understand.
But wait! Maybe, Al Qaeda figured out that the American people will easily figure out that strategy, and vote for the person they endorse. So they are endorsing the person they really want in office.
Hmm....or maybe they figured out that Americans would pretty easily figure out this second strategy, and therefore not vote for whomever they endorse. So they are endorsing the person they don't want in office.
Well, actually, come to think of it, maybe they figured out....
Hmm...(yeah, I do tend to overuse it) what was that movie called? Right, The Princess Bride. The smartest guy of all, Vizzini, really has the unenviable task of figuring out which glass of wine is poisoned by the Man in Black.
Vizzini: But it's so simple. All I have to do is divine from what I know of you: are you the sort of man who would put the poison into his own goblet or his enemy's? Now, a clever man would put the poison into his own goblet, because he would know that only a great fool would reach for what he was given. I am not a great fool, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of you. But you must have known I was not a great fool, you would have counted on it, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of me.
Man in Black: You've made your decision then?
Vizzini: Not remotely. Because iocane comes from Australia, as everyone knows, and Australia is entirely peopled with criminals, and criminals are used to having people not trust them, as you are not trusted by me, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of you.
Man in Black: Truly, you have a dizzying intellect.
....and that's just the start....
Or if Friends is more to your taste,
Rachel: You know what? I’ve been thinking about it. I’m really coming around on the name Ruth. I think I would actually consider naming our child that.
Ross: Rach, I-I can’t tell you how-how much that means to me! Ohh… Wait a minute. Wait a minute. You-you hated the name Ruth! Why-why would you change your mind? Unless, you know we’re never going to have to use it. You did see the folder. You know it’s a boy!
Rachel: I didn’t see anything! I actually changed my mind about the name.
Ross: I don’t think so! You’re just giving me Ruth so you’ll get to name it when it’s a boy, and that’s when you’ll swoop in and name him Heath or Blaine or Sequoia.
Rachel: I would—Sequoia?
Ross: Veto.
Rachel: Fine.
Ross: Unless… (Rachel groans.) You anticipated that I would figure all this out and you know that it actually is a girl, and you really do want her to be named Ruth! Well, I’m not falling for that! Okay? Ruth is off the table!
Rachel: But Ross, you want the name Ruth!
Ross: Not like this!
If the 80's and 90's pop-culture references are too intellectually frivolous, I'm sure you can find more substantive illustrations of the game theoretical game-playing being referred to here.
Since you've mentioned Game Theory, here's another interesting bit:
If you are a tiny nation living in the neighborhood of a superpower and have a "property conflict" with the superpower, what do you do? Well, here's what: You try to annoy and provoke the superpower up to the point that it decides to annex the property (this provocation could include, among other things, fighting and killing the superpower's "property guards"), so that you can then cry foul and the rest of the world runs to support you. That's the game theoretical solution. This is not to say that's what Georgia did.
Obviously it is incredibly odd and unpresidential of Obama to ask the occupied country Georgia to show restraint.
http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSWBT00953020080808
Aug 8 (before the Aug 13 NY Daily News published its article titled "John McCain rips Putin, Russia while Barack Obama relaxes in Hawaii")
"I strongly condemn the outbreak of violence in Georgia, and urge an immediate end to armed conflict," Obama said in a statement. "Now is the time for Georgia and Russia to show restraint, and to avoid an escalation to full-scale war. Georgia's territorial integrity must be respected."
When there are 2 warring factions, it certainly is childish and immature to ask both of them to stop cessation of hostilities and exercise restraint. The right way to do it is to ask your enemy to stop hostile action because enemies (or rivals) are more likely to listen to and follow your advice.
Of course, we won't get into the historical, cultural, economic, social, or martial issues surrounding the Russia-Georgia conflict about Abkhazia and South Ossetia here because that is beyond the scope of this email - it is a lengthy topic by itself and warrants its own discussion.
It does come as a big surprise that a majority of Russians consider US a force for evil. I am pretty certain that if 1980's Americans were polled, they would have had a very different (very positive) view of the Russia. But this is 2008, not the 1980's and now Americans love Russia even more. Then again, it was the USSR that broke up, not the USA.
In Soviet times it was generally agreed that the Kremlin preferred to see a Republican in the White House. Conservatives were more straightforward to deal with because they acted from self-interest and were less concerned with human rights than their Democratic rivals, it was reckoned.
Both George W Bush and Jacques Chirac, the former French president, were vocal in their criticism on Russia’s war in Chechnya while on the campaign trail — only to soften their positions when they took office.
(both of above quotes from the same article that you quoted)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7606100.stm
In 17 countries, the most common view was that US relations with the rest of the world would improve under Mr Obama.
God forbid if relations with Russia were to improve. How would we live in that world? The very thought sends a chill down my spine.
And since Europeans favor socialism, they like socialist Obama. Without commenting on the merits or otherwise of socialism, I concede that the proposition of Obama's victory poses the grave threat of improved relations with Europe. It's a scary thought indeed.
Oh, by the way, look what I found here:
http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/11/01/binladen.tape/
"We are continuing this policy in bleeding America to the point of bankruptcy. Allah willing, and nothing is too great for Allah," bin Laden said in the transcript.
He said the mujahedeen fighters did the same thing to the Soviet Union in Afghanistan in the 1980s, "using guerrilla warfare and the war of attrition to fight tyrannical superpowers."
Oh, never mind, this was nearly 4 years ago (Nov 2, 2004), so it's probably not relevant anymore.
Have a wonderful day!
Poster S
There was an article in the WSJ the other day that addresses the earlier topic of taxation, specifically with respect to Obama's policies.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122480790550265061.html
The gist of the article comes at the end.
"The Joint Tax Committee reports that the bottom 60% of taxpayers with incomes below $50,000 paid less than 1% of the federal income tax in 2006, while the 3.3% with incomes above $200,000 paid more than 58%. Most of Mr. Obama's tax rebates go to the bottom 60%. They can't possibly be financed by shifting an even larger share of the tax burden to the top 3.3%."
The responses below in gray highlight what I interpreted to be A's point regarding Obama supporters in that there doesn't seem to be much in the way of factual support for supporting Obama.
On the other hand, there are a number of significant reasons to not support Obama. It is very difficult to understand why so many people are so infatuated with him. The media loves him so that helps. The sub-prime mess has had an effect which also helps, despite the fact that it is the result of a Democratic Congress' efforts to socialize that industry. Iraq has been more of a problem than it needed to be so that helps although the fact that there have been no successful terrorist attacks in the past eight years contrasts strongly with the eight years preceeding the current administration. Oddly enough, most of that has little to do with Obama except for his support of the policies leading to the sub-prime mess and his opposition to the operations in Iraq.
Only a few more days to go, it'll be interesting!
Response to previous posting
On Endorsements
I don't know who really believes what about whom and neither does anyone else. There was some discussion regarding why some terrorist organization would seem to favor one candidate over another. Clearly Hamas does not want the president of the US to be someone who is willing to get their hands dirty. Given the the current choice, Obama fits that description much more so than McCain. So I offered a possible explanation which may be wrong. Who can really say? I do know that the article the maVerick cited does *not* in fact show that al Qaeda endorses either candidate.
The "I know that he knows that I know that he knows..." argument is generally recognized as being unproductive. At the end of the day the common knowledge is that neither Hamas, al Qaeda nor any other similar group or state want a US which is involved in any meaningful way in foreign policy. Clearly Obama has presented a much more Carter/Clinton-like approach to foreign policy which contrasts strongly with that of McCain and therefore Obama is a more attractive option to Hamas and al Qaeda. I am not sure that basing a vote only upon who Hamas or al Qaeda may prefer is the best strategy, it is something to consider to a degree.
Superpowers
Since you've mentioned Game Theory, here's another interesting bit:
If you are a tiny nation living in the neighborhood of a superpower and have a "property conflict" with the superpower, what do you do? Well, here's what: You try to annoy and provoke the superpower up to the point that it decides to annex the property (this provocation could include, among other things, fighting and killing the superpower's "property guards"), so that you can then cry foul and the rest of the world runs to support you. That's the game theoretical solution. This is not to say that's what Georgia did.
I do not know how interesting it is but I do know that things did not happen in any way remotely similar to what you have suggested above in Georgia this year or in 1921 or Afghanistan in 1978 or Kuwait in 1990 or Poland in 1939 or France or China in 1940 or any other invasion that comes to mind over the past 100+ years nor did you relate that back to Obama's ability to successfully manage foreign policy. So unless you have some good examples, can relate them to the situation in Georgia and to Obama's ability to handle international crises, I do not understand what point you are trying to make. And if you do not believe that is what happened in Georgia why would you even bring it up?
If there is some implied statement being made about superpowers, which Russia is not, there are some compelling arguments to be made that show the benefits to the world in having the US as the remaining superpower.
Obama and Foreign Policy
When there are 2 warring factions, it certainly is childish and immature to ask both of them to stop cessation of hostilities and exercise restraint.
It is childish, and I for one am not joining you in sarcasm, I really believe that. Expecting a nation, or an individual for that matter, under attack to show restraint as a means of handling such as situation is absurd.
Clearly there is a serious lacking of understanding regarding the effectiveness of the threat of credible force and how it keeps peace with hostile, expansionist nations. Examples include Israel, Taiwan and South Korea. If there was not a credible threat of fornone of those nations would exist in their current form if at all.
The right way to do it is to ask your enemy to stop hostile action because enemies (or rivals) are more likely to listen to and follow your advice.
Again, historical rather than conjecture is required. This, to my knowlege has never been a successful strategy. It is not working today in Somalia, Rhwanda, Sudan, Georgia, with Syria, Iran, al Qaeda, the Palestinian situation, and it didn't work in any of the examples I provided above and it clearly didn't work for German Jews in 1940s Germany. There is simply no reason, common sense or otherwise, to believe that what you are suggesting could ever work, it certainly never has in the past.
Anyone who thinks a rebellion is the same thing as an invasion has a fundamental misunderstanding.
"I strongly condemn the outbreak of violence in Georgia, and urge an immediate end to armed conflict," Obama said in a statement. "Now is the time for Georgia and Russia to show restraint, and to avoid an escalation to full-scale war. Georgia's territorial integrity must be respected."
Obama's condemnation of violence and war, regardless of how strong or weak his language or feelings is not an effective means for dealing with such a situation. The relevant question is: Does he have any idea how to approach the problem and develop an actionable plan?
In my previous post I outlined McCain's response and suggested initial plan for addressing the situation and contrasted that with Obama's. This is another very clear example of Obama *acting* (in the theatrical sense that is) presidential rather than *being* presidential (leading with a thoughtful course of action).
Of course, we won't get into the historical, cultural, economic, social, or martial issues surrounding the Russia-Georgia conflict about Abkhazia and South Ossetia here because that is beyond the scope of this email - it is a lengthy topic by itself and warrants its own discussion.
It is not surprising that a discussion or even a presentation of the facts is avoided; it was what I took to be A's point.
It does come as a big surprise that a majority of Russians consider US a force for evil. I am pretty certain that if 1980's Americans were polled, they would have had a very different (very positive) view of the Russia. But this is 2008, not the 1980's and now Americans love Russia even more. Then again, it was the USSR that broke up, not the USA.
I clearly do not spend as much time with sarcasm as you but on the off-chance that really does come as a surprise to anyone then they clearly do not understand Putin.
Putin has strong-armed energy companies out of billions of dollars, murdered those who spoke out against him, attempted to assassinate foreign heads of state, and used the Russian military to make explicit and public threats of action against other nations in the region such as Poland in which case a nuclear attack was stated. Putin is a bad guy, always has been, always will be.
Your have implied that the Russian people are angry with the US because the Soviet Union collapsed. Where is the evidence for that?
I disagree and point to the facts that
1. the Russian people have never enjoyed more freedom than since the dissolution of the USSR
2. the economy of Russia its integration into the global marketplace has developed greatly since
3. Putin controls the media and allows the people to know only what he wants them to know and this is a much more likely explanation in shaping popular opinion among the Russian people
(http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/14/AR2008091402249_pf.html).
In Soviet times it was generally agreed that the Kremlin preferred to see a Republican in the White House. Conservatives were more straightforward to deal with because they acted from self-interest and were less concerned with human rights than their Democratic rivals, it was reckoned.
Both George W Bush and Jacques Chirac, the former French president, were vocal in their criticism on Russia’s war in Chechnya while on the campaign trail — only to soften their positions when they took office.
(both of above quotes from the same article that you quoted)
Please be specific, I cited more than one article.
With respect to President Bush and Chirac: Yes they did (although it is hard to imagine Chirac being able to get any softer on anyone that is not the US) and they were both wrong. President Bush was not right about everything and Chirac was not right about anything so their paths were bound to cross eventually. What is your point? My point is that Putin is a bad guy, there is a great deal of evidence supporting that view and Sen. McCain has always warned of Putin's true colors.
Since you have brought up the Soviet Union, Obama still refers to the Soviet Union himself as if it were still in existence (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HbRRd1tWbKo).
President Regan ended the Cold War and as you correctly pointed out previously the maVerick, the US-led nations won. However, the victory came over a long period of time, at great expence and was achievable only via the threat of credible force (in the case of the Cold War, MAD) which is a concept that not only kept what has been termed a great power war from errupting, but which do not seem to be understood by Obama or his supporters given their collective comments on the Georgia situation.
Credible means that the another has to believe first that you have the ability to defend yourself and second but equally and perhspa more importantly, that you actually have the stomach for war and you're actually going to hit back. Clinton destroyed the second part of this credibility for the US in the global community with his handling of the various events I detailed in my previous posting.
Somalia in particular sent a strong message to the global community (including those such as bin Laden and Sadam Hussein). Many who studied the issue have conclude that Sadam Hussein's defiance of more than a dozen UN resolutions, expullsion of UN WMD investigators was directly related to his belief that the US under Clinton would never do anything and that disbelief in the threat of credible for is what created the conditions that led up to Operation Iraqi Freedom. Had Sadam believed that the UN (led by the US of course) would actually have done something similar to what they did under President GHW Bush he would have complied with the resolutions, at least to a degree, not expelled the inspectors and might have still be running things today. The point again is that Obama's remarks on foreign policy project a Carter/Clinton-like image which history has show emboldens and encourages one's enemies to behave more aggressively (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9905E3DC113DF936A35751C0A9649C8B63).
In that same video montage cited above, Obama states that Iran is no threat and then states that it is a grave threat. Obama also believes there are US forces in Puerto Prince and Havana, Cuba. Perhaps his self-espoused *single best* qualification to make foreign policy decisions, living in Indonesia from the ages of 6-10, is not as useful as he thinks or would have others believe.
McCain's five and a half years in the Hanoi Hilton and 22 years as a Navy officer is far more valuable formal academic training and practical expedience in dealing with people and nations hostile to the US.
You do know that they, al Qaeda and the Iranian/Syrian supported-insurgents are losing and we, the US-led forces, are winning despite the fact that the media is reluctant to admit it (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y7lROml502U)? As a matter of fact, just the other day the US aknowleged that it killed a high-ranking member of al Qaeda i nIraq and a terrorist cell leader and destroyed a base of operations in Syria. Gen. Petraeus has stated that insurgents funneling into Iraq from nations like Iran and Syria is down from 120/month last year to 20/month.
Even Obama will admit that the US is winning although he tries not to do so which is probably because he is too arrogant to admit that he was completely wrong about these issues and it would give Americans reason to have hope and believe that things are not destined for failure in which case his political case is certainly weakened (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GBZHIubZWUg, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Udt92OwPOgs&feature=related).
Obama has always predicted failure for the US which is what he has based his entire campaign upon. Here he is discussing his view of the prospects in Iraq: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BCgPR3Qd2Os (the end is very childish but I dont have time to hunt for better presentations of these things and the clips are no less valid). Obama first said that more troops would be a disaster and that sectarian violence will escalate and then he says that more troops will "quell violence" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5K7NZ9ULVuk). In that same video Obama said that "anytime you put American troops anywhere in the world in they are going to perform brilliantly" while also saying that American military personnel are just air raiding villages and killing civilians (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wrW4fOGIMVY). Although I would rather not have the artistic elements added to the videos, the content is unchanged.
So which is it Obama, or is it both?
Would the US military win in Iraq or not?
Would the surge work or not?
Are US military personnel performing brilliantly or just air raiding villages and killing civilians?
Both would of course be consistent with a typical Democrat position as it does have the benefit of allowing for denial of all responsibility for failures and the claim of all credit for successes.
One only needs to review the number and severity of attacks that al Qaeda perpetrated during the Clinton administration with the number over the Bush administration to see that we are safer and it is not for want of trying.
Obama, his supporters and the DNP may have missed it or perhaps suffer from selective amnesia but in Iraq the al Qaeda #2 was just killed and violence is in significant decline being pushed further and further north. Even sources like MSNBC and CNN are reporting this although I am sure it is like finger nails on a chalk board to them (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27201846/, http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/03/14/iraq.main/index.html).
Obama is so disingenuous and lacking meaningful content that it astonishes me so many people are so infatuated with him.
I think the following clips get at A's original point although the limited sample size should be kept in mind:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-uyJSXCZRpc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xod9wV6NKeg
Obama is claiming that he can provide universal health care, pay for the development of technology and infrastructure required for energy independence *and* cut taxes for 80% of the population? That is a great story except it is mathematically impossible to make the finances work out.
Since we are talking about the position of Commander in Chief of all US military forces...
I know that McCain has difficulty raising his arms because of the tortures done to him by the NVA over five and one half years but what is Obama's excuse (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rg1SKjptdYs)? Not wearing a flag pin on your lapel is one thing and being married to a woman like Michelle with whom he obviously has much more in common than not is another, but to show such disrespect for the flag, national anthem and by extension the nation and those who have fought and fight for it by a US senator who is seeking to become president is reaching a level of arrogance that is hard to match. Although Biden's lecturing of Palin on Article I of the US Constitution was close particularly since it describes the powers of a position he has held for decades *and* he got it completely wrong (http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/president/debates/transcripts/vice-presidential-debate.html; http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articlei.html)!
Should Obama be elected I predict he will turn to the world after all the dirty, unpopular work has been done by those who went before him and then with things more or less under control, he'll build another Greek temple to himself (that is not sarcasm by the way: http://minx.cc/?post=271619), appear before the masses and claim credit for the results of efforts and people that he opposed and marginalized at every turn from the beginning.
Again, Obama has been wrong on almost every point concerning Iraq and despite what he, you, the popular media or anyone else wants to believe, we are winning in Iraq. As I stated above, the power of physical force is the only thing that can sustain the fragile conditions that allow commerce to take root and flourish. That is exactly what is happening in Iraq now (http://www.nypost.com/seven/10102008/news/worldnews/baghdad_goes_boom___in_stox_132978.htm, http://sci.tech-archive.net/Archive/sci.med.diseases.lyme/2006-08/msg00716.html, http://www.defenselink.mil/tfbso/).
Obama's Health Insurance Plan
Obama's plan for health insurance is not looking too promising either (http://money.cnn.com/2008/10/28/news/economy/health_care_and_election/?postversion=2008102807) and if past behavior is indicative of future performance I believe that with Obama forcing insurance companies to insure people they currently deem too risky there is a sub-prime-like future for the insurance industry. If Obama thinks that a national pool or government run insurance system is a good idea, that experiment has been tried in Massachusetts and has been a disaster.
Obama's Personal Character and Appeal
Obama is close friends with people like Ayers and Dohrn (she is the only person to have publicly applauded the Manson murders by the way), Farakahn (dubbed the black Hitler by the Anti-Defimation League), Wright (Mr. "God Damn America" and "US KKK of A") and others of the worst kind of character.
Obama's attempt to minimize the history of Ayers (Obama says that all happened when he was a child) was weak at best but it completely falls apart when Ayers stated in an interview with the NY Times (published 11 September 2001 of all days) that he only regrets not planting more bombs and that he did not "discount the possibility" that he would commit terrorist actions against the US again (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F02E1DE1438F932A2575AC0A9679C8B63). Obama was born in 1961 which would have made him about 40 when Ayers gave that interview. Obama was 40, now 47 and during that time these people openly declare their hatred of America; the little boy excuse doesn't fly anymore.
Before any Obama supporters get off on a tangent about why Ayers or any of these others did/said what they did, the question is *not* about Ayers or Dohrn or Farakahn or Wright or Pfleger (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24882600/) or Rezko, or any of the other contemptible people Obama has embraced over the years and continues to do so in his personal and political life, but rather why on Earth would any good and decent person want to associate with any of these people for any reason much less all of them, so closely (his spiritual advisors no less) and for a period of decades? Where there is smoke there is fire; if you want to know someone just look at their friends; birds of a feather flock together; once is happenstance, twice is coincidence but three times is enemy fire ... there are countless adages of conventional wisdom that we have all used at one point or another which can be called upon in situations like these but it all boils down to the fact that Obama has chosen to associate intimately with these people both personally and politically for decades and any reasonable person must conclude that he agrees with them, be using them for his own selfish ends or both. His treatment of Wright and Trinity Church shows the third case to be true. It is clear that Obama is not the sort of person that should be leading this or any other nation in any capacity.
Do supporters of Obama really believe that it is OK to associate with these kinds of people? It would seem so. In the wake of Oklahoma City, the Pentagon, WTC, and Shanksville how anyone would want to have anything to do with anyone that associates with known terrorists is at the same time astonishing and a cause of concern.
We are electing a leader and a national and international symbol of our nation. The message that Obama's long-term friendships with terrorists and enemies of the US such as Ayers, Dorhn, Farakahn and others and the strong support shown to Obama by so many is worrisome.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7606100.stm
According to the above article you have cited, the 46% of those polled who said their view of the US would fundamentally change if Obama were elected and indicated that it was because of his race.
The Turks apparently believe things will get worse with Obama but prefer him anyway. This is particularly interesting because Turkey has been threatened by Russia as has Poland in which case a nuclear attack was explicitly stated (http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=5585656). If Turkey or Poland were to wake up to a mushroom cloud would Obama urge further restraint? What is Obama's threshold for an acceptable level of suffering of others before he gives his blessing for them to defend themselves? His arrogance is staggering.
I thank you for suggesting this article as it underscores the irrational beliefs and behaviors of many of those who support Obama and again gets at what I took to be A's point.
In 17 countries, the most common view was that US relations with the rest of the world would improve under Mr Obama. And since Europeans favor socialism, they like socialist Obama.Without commenting on the merits or otherwise of socialism, I concede that the proposition of Obama's victory poses the grave threat of improved relations with Europe. It's a scary thought indeed.
Of course it would as the polling shows that many nations would like to see a weaker US politically, economically and militarily. A weaker US would most certainly be received more positively by these nations. If appeasing these people is the road to improved relations I'll not take it. You would concede? Again with the sarcasm, change the record. Consider Turkey or perhaps India, a very peaceful, nuclear power that contributes very positively to the global economy with a population of ~1 billion people and only 9% favor Obama. It must also be noted that 40% of the people polled in the article you referenced had no view either way. All of this was contained but neglected in your review of your reference: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7606100.stm.
Oh, by the way, look what I found here:
http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/11/01/binladen.tape/
"We are continuing this policy in bleeding America to the point of bankruptcy. Allah willing, and nothing is too great for Allah," bin Laden said in the transcript.
He said the mujahedeen fighters did the same thing to the Soviet Union in Afghanistan in the 1980s, "using guerrilla warfare and the war of attrition to fight tyrannical superpowers."
Oh, never mind, this was nearly 4 years ago (Nov 2, 2004), so it's probably not relevant anymore.
Have a wonderful day!
What is your purpose with the above quotation?
Are you suggesting that the US not defend itself because it costs money or that it may be difficult? Clearly history has shown the US to be correct in WWI and WWII despite the massive costs and difficulties.
maVerick, so that I am clear about your position on this one, do you prefer that the US not defend itself? If not in retaliation for numerous attacks, are there any conditions in which you would advocate the use of US military power, particularly in its own defense?
Since you are quoting people, here are a couple people I consider to be far more respectable and worthy of consideration in making US foreign policy decisions than the individual you have chosen:
Let me make this very clear: Americans will not be intimidated or influenced by an enemy of our country.
I'm sure Senator Kerry agrees with this.
I also want to say to the American people that we're at war with these terrorists and I am confident that we will prevail.
-- President George W. Bush
Let me make it clear, crystal clear: as Americans, we are absolutely united in our determination to hunt down and destroy Osama bin Laden and the terrorists.
They are barbarians, and I will stop at absolutely nothing to hunt down, capture or kill the terrorists wherever they are, whatever it takes. Period.
-- Senator John Kerry
Both of the above are found here: http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/29/binladen.tape/index.html
The only reason a thoughtful persn includes a quotation or reference is to provide support for their stated point of view. What is your stated point of view? I am still unclear as to your purpose in quoting bin Laden and your associated "Have a wonderful day" closing. Are you saying that the US is a tyranny, otherwise showing some form of support for Osama bin Laden or are in agreement with him? It is very unclear to me.
Back to the matter at hand: Obama. Obama believes that because nations like Iran have fewer financial resources they pose no threat to us (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Cnbl_2AbSU). He could not be more wrong and obviously learned nothing from 2001; I know asking him to recall his basic American history and the Revolutionary War is asking a bit much.
As you correctly pointed out maVerick with your al Qaeda example, when fighting what is referred to as asymmetrical warfare, given what is available in this day and age it is not required to have a large military budget to inflict massive damage upon a peaceful nation that embraces personal freedoms with a developed economy. There are always consequences, there is no free lunch and we must accept and deal with the aforementioned issue as an undesirable consequence of our love life, liberty and pursuit of hapiness in a world that contains people such as bin Laden.
the maVerick
----Superpowers
----Since you've mentioned Game Theory, here's another interesting bit:
----If you are a tiny nation living in the neighborhood of a superpower and have a "property conflict" with the superpower, what do you do? Well, here's what: You try to annoy and provoke the superpower up to the point that it decides to annex the property (this provocation could include, among other things, fighting and killing the superpower's "property guards"), so that you can then cry foul and the rest of the world runs to support you. That's the game theoretical solution. This is not to say that's what Georgia did.
--I do not know how interesting it is but I do know that things did not happen in any way remotely similar to what you have suggested above in Georgia this year
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/gg.html
Georgian military action in South Ossetia in early August 2008 led to a Russian military response that not only occupied the breakaway areas, but large portions of Georgia proper as well.
But I am sure you have some more credible secret sources to claim that it wasn't so. And for lumping Russia-Georgia with some conflicts of the last century and not with others.
----Oh, by the way, look what I found here:
----http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/11/01/binladen.tape/
----"We are continuing this policy in bleeding America to the point of bankruptcy. Allah willing, and nothing is too great for Allah," bin Laden said in the transcript.
----He said the mujahedeen fighters did the same thing to the Soviet Union in Afghanistan in the 1980s, "using guerrilla warfare and the war of attrition to fight tyrannical superpowers."
----Oh, never mind, this was nearly 4 years ago (Nov 2, 2004), so it's probably not relevant anymore.
--maVerick, so that I am clear about your position on this one, do you prefer that the US not defend itself?
No, just that we be smarter and less arrogant about it.
Not follow the "Neither Liberty Nor Safety" (interesting book by former Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen Nathan Twining) approach.
(The title of the book comes from Benjamin Franklin's quote: "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.")
And to spend time understanding a problem before jumping in to solve it.
----Of course, we won't get into the historical, cultural, economic, social, or martial issues surrounding the Russia-Georgia conflict about Abkhazia and South Ossetia here because that is beyond the scope of this email - it is a lengthy topic by itself and warrants its own discussion.
--It is not surprising that a discussion or even a presentation of the facts is avoided; it was what I took to be A's point.
As I have mentioned before, if you'd like to have an honest discussion about any of the issues (whether it be Economy, Decision Making, Foreign Policy, or even more granularly Russia-Georgia), please start an individual thread and I will provide an appropriate response.
As I mentioned earlier, I do not have a horse in the race, and I do not want the issues tangled up in Obama vs McCain politics. In fact, for this reason, because emotions are evidently running high in the last leg of campaigning, I suggest that we get back to these discussions after the election.
(In today's heated political debates, it is easy to forget, for instance, that historically, most American wars have been started or fanned by the Democrats and historically Republicans have been voted to power to stop the wars)
Have a nice day!
Poster S
Georgian military action in South Ossetia in early August 2008 led to a Russian military response that not only occupied the breakaway areas, but large portions of Georgia proper as well.
the maVerick has disproved his own point with the reference above. As we all know, Georgia took action to put down a rebellion and did nothing to justify the Russia invasion. The UN recognizes South Ossetia as part of Georgia. South Ossetia is *in* Georgia, not Russia. It is somewhat perplexing that for someone who has offered to present to us all regarding "historical, cultural, economic, social, or martial issues surrounding the Russia-Georgia conflict about Abkhazia and South Ossetia" that the basic geography has been overlooked. There is no justification for Russia's action in Georgia which is the attitude shared by most nations and politicians including Obama; he just has no idea how to deal with it which is the point that I have made and you have avoided. So again, this was never about Georgia per se but rather about Obama's response to what has happened in Georgia. This and everything I have been writing has all been about Obama. I hope that finally relieves any confusion.
It was a contrived scenario to which I was referring and that should have been obvious given the citation adjacent to my comment. Again:
If you are a tiny nation living in the neighborhood of a superpower and have a "property conflict" with the superpower, what do you do? Well, here's what: You try to annoy and provoke the superpower up to the point that it decides to annex the property (this provocation could include, among other things, fighting and killing the superpower's "property guards"), so that you can then cry foul and the rest of the world runs to support you. That's the game theoretical solution. This is not to say that's what Georgia did.
That fictional scenario is not what happened nor can I think of an instance where it ever happened in the past. Distancing one's self from one's own argument with "That is not to say..." is evidence that the author doesn't believe the premise of their own argument so so the question becomes: Why say it in the first place if you don't believe it?
What did happen of course was that Russia invaded Georgia without a legitimate cause in the eyes of the international community. It is difficult to believe that some have such difficulty understanding that. Rather it seems that is again an effort to direct attention away from the original point which was Obama's inability to grasp and deal with an international crisis as suggested by Sen. Clinton?
But I am sure you have some more credible secret sources
I have no idea what is meant here other than yet another example of maVerick's consistently polluting these forums with those types of personal slights. They add nothing to the quality of the discussion, are designed to inflame and should be beneath a grad of this school.
As for who I may know, where they may work and what they may do, that was never the issue maVerick and since I have consistently provided relevant references that are publicly available, your comment suggests that you are not reading what people write but rather narrowly focussed upon disparaging those who have views you do not agree with. Disagreement with ideas is fine and should not be discouraged particularly in an academic institution but when that degenerates into something personal that is something else entirely.
And for lumping Russia-Georgia with some conflicts of the last century and not with others.
I don't understand what you mean here. Not with others? What others?
The reason I mentioned those historical facts was to provide examples of the naive view that Obama has on foreign policy, which you seem to share maVerick, regarding how to deal with hostile, aggressive, expansionist nations: The right way to do it is to ask your enemy to stop hostile action because enemies (or rivals) are more likely to listen to and follow your advice. I thought I was rather clear in making my point.
And to spend time understanding a problem before jumping in to solve it.
Russia invaded a sovereign nation without legitimate cause similarly to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. What do you not understand maVerick?
My intention was never to have a discussion about Georgia. The intention was very clearly and that was to talk about Obama's ability to handle foreign policy which, again, is why I used the Georgia situation, to highlight Obama's inability to handle an international crisis and deal effectively on foreign policy.
I also cited the Iraq situation as one in which he has been wrong about everything of that effort all the while preaching failure of US forces which does not help morale.
Another example is Obama's arrogant and damaging public remark regarding Pakistan. Why he would state that he'll invade one of the key players upon whom we rely in the effort to fight terrorism while simultaneously stating that he will have unconditional talks with Iran is incomprehensible.
As I mentioned earlier, I do not have a horse in the race, and I do not want the issues tangled up in Obama vs McCain politics.
All of these issue, taxes, foreign policy, personal character, are about Obama. All of these posting with the notable exception of maVerick's are about Obama.
The only *tangling* is being done by maVerick who for one reason or another has never directly addressed any of the issues regarding Obama which has been the subject of all of my postings. A glance at the subject line of even maVerick's own emails bears that out.
No, just that we be smarter and less arrogant about it.
Then why not just write that, elaborate upon it so we all know what you mean by being smart and arrogant and provide some supporting facts rather than quoting bin Laden and appending "Have a wonderful day!" to the quotation? The former seems far more efficient and effective in communicating whatever you point may have been than the latter.
To allow you to clarify yourself, how does that quote from bin Laden have anything to do with Obama's foreign policy, my criticism of Obama's ability to lead on foreign policy, or demonstrate arrogance on the part of the US in foreign policy makers?
As far as not being smart: The war that Obama and the far left in this nation said could not be won was in fact won brilliantly with fewer than 200 combat casualties against one of three largest standing armies in the world at the time who had months to prepare and entrench. Now the social and economic order and progress which Obama et al. said could never be achieved is becoming more of a reality with each passing day. Interestingly, for those who doubted Iran's involvement, the fighting now is occurring in the north, closer to the border of Iran which raises the question as to why the insurgents and terrorists would retreat closer to the Iranian border.
How can so many people accept Obama, someone who has led the charge in predicting US military failure at every turn, as president and in command of our armed forces?
How can people accept Obama as someone who supports and invites into his political camp people who are known by all to either be domestic terrorists or to have publicly supported foreign terrorists like the PLO and Black September? Even former president Clinton has, however subtly, challenged Obama's patriotism.
maVerick, can you clearly explain how fighting terrorism in what has been described by bin Laden as the forefront in that war, Iraq, is arrogant, not smart or otherwise wrong?
Since you chose a quotation that had so much to to do with financial cost you must be implying that cost has something to do with being arrogant. That connection is not obvious, please elaborate.
If you are concerned with financial cost, why would you chose to quote bin Laden and not a report from the GAO, the Pentagon or even the US Congress who approves all government spending any of which are far more knowledgeable and credible than bin Laden on such a subject.
maVerick, if you would address any of that particularly in the context of how it relates to Obama's ability to handle foreign policy that would be of interest.
Not follow the "Neither Liberty Nor Safety" (interesting book by former Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen Nathan Twining) approach.
(The title of the book comes from Benjamin Franklin's quote: "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.")
I think that we would all agree that the world is significantly different now than it was in the 1960s. "I entered the CIA 42 years ago, and I think that the world is as complex and in a real way more dangerous than at any time since then." - Robert Gates, former DCI and current Secretary of Defense (http://www.newsweek.com/id/165654/page/1). Incidentally, Obama's advisors have suggested that Secretary Gates remain Secretary of Defense in the event of an Obama victory.
However, since you have chosen the quotation you did, it is clear that you believe liberties have been lost. Can anyone list the liberties that they believe have been lost since 2001 and why you believe so?
On the other hand, if the potential loss of liberties were to become a topic of discussion, and I don't know what that has to do with Obama's foreign policy, I would like to hear an advocate of Obama discuss Obama's plans for Fair Doctrine and his recent treatment media organizations that have not been supportive of him with respect to the First Amendment and freedom of the press.
As I have mentioned before, if you'd like to have an honest discussion about any of the issues (whether it be Economy, Decision Making, Foreign Policy, or even more granularly Russia-Georgia), please start an individual thread and I will provide an appropriate response.
It is interesting that you are the one who consistently avoids discussing any of these issues. Anyone who has read any of my postings would most certainly recall me raising all of those issues with respect to Obama. As far as starting another thread, there is no need when all of those issues are being discussed presently and have been for some time now.
maVerick, are you are saying that the discussions thus far or I personally have been dishonest in some way. If so you really do need to explain yourself.
maVerick you say that you do not support Obama. If that is so, why do you take such strong positions that are so closely aligned with the extreme left of the Democratic Party of which Obama has been recognized by the National Journal as being the most extreme? And why are you so hostile towards people who do not support Obama?
For all of the talk regarding McCain voting with the President 90% of the time, Obama votes with his party 96% of the time and his party has a much lower approval rating than President Bush or the GOP (http://www.gallup.com/poll/108856/Congressional-Approval-Hits-RecordLow-14.aspx). Additionally, Obama has managed to get and only about 0.6 bills/year passed in a Democratic Congress and yet people somehow believe he is a great uniter? And his 96% voting record does nothing to suggest that he is an independent thinker or able to see more than his side of an issue.
I've done my best to direct the discussion to the original topic: Obama.
maVerick, since you seem to so vigorously disagree with just about everything I write, why don't you provide a thoughtful argument with some fact-based examples supporting the contention that Obama is good candidate with good character, sound judgment and sufficient experience to be the 44th president of the US and we can proceed from there. Otherwise, I see no point nor have any interest is continuing in this direction.
After this, I decided that there was no point in getting into a petty and meaningless debate with A, who seems to equate every discussion about any issue to an Obama endorsement, and that I should start other threads on specific issues.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
