Friday Frolic:Updated
Victor Davis Hanson evicerates The New York Times over the War, read it.
On July 8, the New York Times ran an historic editorial entitled “The Road Home,” demanding an immediate American withdrawal from Iraq. It is rare that an editorial gets almost everything wrong, but “The Road Home” pulls it off. Consider, point by point, its confused—and immoral—defeatism.
1. “It is time for the United States to leave Iraq, without any more delay than the Pentagon needs to organize an orderly exit.”
Rarely in military history has an “orderly” withdrawal followed a theater-sized defeat and the flight of several divisions. Abruptly leaving Iraq would be a logistical and humanitarian catastrophe. And when scenes of carnage begin appearing on TV screens here about latte time, will the Times then call for “humanitarian” action?
Mitt Romney wins another silly little straw poll, this one over Fred Thompson at the Young Republican convention in Florida again showing his organizational skills and appeal when in person.
Romney, by contrast, treated the crowd to vintage Romney: a mix of enthusiasm and optimism with a heavy dose of policy. The speech was structured to compare the Democrats’ vision of change to his. He declared: “"To confront unprecedented challenges, we must change. Both parties claim to be the party of change, and I think both are right. But there's a big difference in the direction their change would take us.” While explaining the Democrats vision of change is a European economic model he set out his: “I have a different answer. Let's make the Bush tax cuts permanent. Let's kill the Death Tax. And let's have a new tax rate for middle income Americans who want to save their money, who are investing in America. The tax rate on their interest, dividends and capital gains should be...exactly zero!”
Here's a few good reads about Michael Moore's "Sicko" .
Kyle-Ann Shiver
Christopher Chantrill
Peter Barry Chowka
Rich Lowry
Diana M Ernst
I have to wonder if Mr Moore had a heart attack or stroke owing to his girth if he would go the Mayo Clinic , France, Canada or Cuba. I would be willing to bet he is self insured and would choose the Mayo Clinic in Chicago. If he likes France so much he should immigrate there and explain his first mockumentary to zee car burners.
This is hilarious, good wine foils a robbery.!
My blogger buddy Angel is up to her usual Friday fun, I am going to try and figure out this trackback thing once and for all.
From my buddy Amy Procter, I hope she will post the full link addy.
Also courtesy of Amy
19 comments:
Your question about where would Michael Moore go if he had a heart attack is a red herring.
The problem with the system isn't for people that have tons of money, the problem is for people that don't have the means to buy their way through.
So obviously Michael is in the category of people that can afford the best care.
Now, not everybody is in his position. Some people have trouble putting food on the table. Some people file bankruptcy because of medical bill. So on and so forth...
What Michael really likes is America, and he wants America to become better. We can certainly fix our healthcare system.
On the right side of your blog, you have a Israeli flag with the words 'God Bless Israel'
It appears the God blessed Israel with a universal healthcare system. Maybe God could bless the USA as well...
So an anon coward supports socialism, what's new here, nothing? I am not rich and I pay for my healthcare out of pocket at about a tenth what the insurance companies would charge me a month. Shoot pets get high quality private healthcare in Canada while people have to get in line for the gov't dole. No wonder you are an anonymous coward, you want to suckle at the taxpayer teat, just like a whiny infant.
Gov't care is not free it is the most expensive of all, it could cost you your life or livelyhood.
I guess even Human Events gets it wrong sometimes...If you want another Rino in the White house, I guess Mitt's your man. Even "moderate" Conservatives just can't stomach his past ultra-liberal views and don't trust that he won't revert back--too much political expediency in his past and present. No firm committment to core values.
Abortion waffle alone disqualifies him among the religious right.
Thompson is the choice for real Republican Conservatives at this point. We don't see the point of electing a Rino. Guess it's all or nothing for us at this point.
Goat, everything you blog indicates you shouldn't be backing a rino so ardently, unless you're for him only becausee he's a LDS .
And believe me, Romney's picture is next to the entry for RINO in wikipedia. Google it if you don't believe me.
Then how come Fred worked for the abortion lobby and was a major player in the McCain-Feingold boondoggle. I can hang a RINO tag on Fred just as easily as you try to do to Mitt. I am a fiscal conservative first and Mitt clearly is head and shoulders above the pack in that regard. On the social front he has had one wife, and not run around Hollywood like a playboy.
Even though I have a Fred Thompson Blogroll on my sidebar, I'm still uncertain about who will be the best candidate. I think it's still a bit early to tell. Well, it is for me anyway. I find it confusing, but hey! I've been a bit under the weather.
Off topic Goat (you can delete this part of my comment if you like, because it is off topic)speaking of weather, it's been raining like a Monsoon for the last ten hours here.
Good luck with figuring out how to do trackbacks. They aren't that hard. Really! Let me know how you do. :)
Goat,
I addressed specifically your point that Moore would go to a US hospital if he was sick. It's like asking what kind of car a rich person would get (ferrari? bmw? mercedes? lexus? corvette?) and use that to conclude that a small 15000$ car wouldn't be good.
Your current philophosy of paying for health care as you go is not efficient. First, I'm guessing you haven't been faced with any expensive hospital stay. If you have, then it means you are rich enough to afford it at which point you fall in the same category as Moore...
You also take the current insurance premium as reflecting what it is really worth. If we moved to a more efficient health care system, those premiums would go down. It's also in our interest to spread risks among all instead of creating a system where one person has to carry a weight that is way too heavy for one to carry.
As for the swipe at socialism, are you saying you are against all social programs (social security, medicare, medicaid, drug plan, public transit, etc) or is it specifically socialized medicine that you hate?
Finally for my name, AnonymousCoward, it is the acknowledgement that I am not giving out my real name. Most bloggers fall in that category...
I agree that in an efficient sytem premiums would go down for insurance but suggesting anything run by the gov't as efficient is ludicrous. BTW, I am against those other socalist programs as well. I have needed a doctor three times in thirty years, why should I pay a balancing amount so a hypochondriac gets their care for less, that is unfair and means I pay a far higher amount for far less care. Currently In Ca my monthly premium for a very high deductible policy is about $130 and I would never even reach my deductible. I would contribute to a health savings account though and would like to be able to invest a portion of my SSI taxes privayely. Further I would abolish Dept of Education, and the Endowment for the Arts, eliminate the IRS and all income related taxes and set up a national sales tax so that way everybody pays. Read the article I linked by Mrs. Shiver and you will get a better understanding.
Plus with a high deductible I would still be paying out of pocket for the same things I do now. Besides what does a Canadian care about US healthcare? Our system has it's problems but gov't control is not the answer, just look at the recent scandal at Walter Reid, and at a LA county run hospital, those are gov't run.
I am not sure why a Canadian would care, but I could tell you why a US citizen studying abroad would.
We can have different systems, some government managed, some single payer, etc.
I appreciate your consistency of not wanting any of the socialist programs, but it looks like a majority of americans (including republicans?) do like some or all of these programs. I guess that makes us a socialist country!
Anyways, if you are against this socialist attitude, why not be in favor of a per person tax (everyone aged 18 and above pays the same flat amount). A sales tax would be unfair to people that consume more than others. Why should I pay more taxes to the gov. if I buy a 50k car and you buy a 25k tax? Why should taxes be based on consumption?
I could support a flat tax but my argument for a consumption based tax is based on that everyone has to pay it including illegals. I would of course exempt food, medicine and certain childcare products. Socialists should prefer a sales based tax because the rich would pay a higher percentage and the burden is spread evenly over all society including visitors not just the earners. You say that it would be unfair for those that consume more but you would support something that would be unfair to people that consume less healthcare. I agree that there should be some sort of safety net for the least fortunate folks though those programs should not be expanded to cover everyone and most of that should and can be handled at the State and local level not the Federal. Big centralized gov't run programs don't work, socialism does not work, even Europe is waking up to that fact, so why try to implement a failed model in the US? Single-payer healthcare is nothing but a recipe for a beaurocratic boondoggle that is neither free nor quality.
Oh and those socialist programs are going to have to be seriously reformed before they bankrupt the country. Many Ca cities are facing this problem now after being overly generous with their entitlement benefits to their employees, or ask the big three automakers about the same thing.
The US Gov't already has about 40 trillion in unfunded entitlement debt, where is the money going to come from for free Gov't healthcare ie. single-payer?
I appreciate the discussion BTW, others can jump in if they wish.
Hiya Goat!..thanks for the link hun..email me anytime and I will try to explain the trackback thingy! :)
" You say that it would be unfair for those that consume more but you would support something that would be unfair to people that consume less healthcare"
I definitely don't advocate a flat "per person" tax - the thing I find funny from people who don't like socialism is that they are still always willing to go for a system that will tax rich people more. Personnally I am for progressive taxation, the estate tax, etc. I think that if we want our society to survice we can't just allow a huge gap to get created between the rich and the poor because I think it will eventually blow up in our face. The american dream has to be accessible...
But fundamentally I think we have a different conception of the role governement should play in society. I think there are some tasks that are better left to the government. I think a meta structure for healthcare is among those things.
Actually a consumption tax would not overly tax the rich as frugal ones can choose not to spend extravagantly. A middle class shopaholic could pay more taxes than a much wealthier more frugal person.
AC, do you think the gov't response to Katrina or its ability to issue passports to its own citizens as conducive to a gov't takeover of healthcare and private insurance? I do not trust the Feds to get much right, I just pray they get National security right. I definately do not trust Hillary or the DNC with my health or the safety of our nation.
How would you pay for a Federal "meta-structure" as we are currently in about $40 trillion in debt to unsecured entitlement spending and how would you define a "meta-structure" other than by soviet socialist central planning?
We can agree to disagree 100%, thanks for the civil dialogue, thats all I ask. I appreciate the fact you advocate Euro-socialism and high taxes, it helps make my points all the more clear about the American left and their support for Euro-leftism/socialism, something we rejected by force 230 odd years ago. I have to ask why you want the Federal Gov't to provide you with healthcare free of charge? Present your case to the Barnyard if you have one, I look forward to how you would pay for it.
Those are great questions and I think all deserve an answer. I think the basic one, to begin with, is the amount of money we spend per capita on health care as compared to other countries.
Start with these numbers:
http://hdr.undp.org/hdr2006/statistics/indicators/52.html
How many countries have universal health care and pay less than us? Simplistic maths would say that we could get exactly what they get without having to spend a dime. Even better, we could get nearly twice what the Canadians or Australians get without having to spend one penny!
We are already spending the money. We are spending it in copays. In deductibles. The insurance premiums. The amount companies pay for health insurance. Etc.
I also believe that you need to put people in charge in DC who actually care about the government. I have no love for politicians who think the government is a bad thing. Katrina is a great example of putting 'heck of a job Brownie' in charge and getting terrible result.
There are fields where the private sector does an admirable job, and some that are less stelar. Health care falls in that category. A clean up is in order imho.
Anyways, what system do you want to see. From what I understand you are for a system where the needy people get free coverage, but would you do anything new beyond health savings accounts?
230 years ago I believe we rejected getting the short end of the stick. I don't think socialism was around yet. I would love it in 2008 we reject this crappy system we have and put in place something that can pull all of us forward!
"Actually a consumption tax would not overly tax the rich as frugal ones can choose not to spend extravagantly. A middle class shopaholic could pay more taxes than a much wealthier more frugal person."
I think that cannot happen. First, if rich people stop spending their money I am sure this will have a terrible impact on the economy. Second, by doing that you are essentially punishing rich people since you are telling them that the more you spend the more you get taxed. I understand the technical advantage of doing a sales tax, but I don't understand how you don't think it would be another system to tax the wealthy.
How about if there was a cap on how much sales tax you could pay?
I think at the end of the day we need to tax rich people more only because we couldn't do it any other way... The math wouldn't add up.
And for the deficits, this is exactly the reasons why I want us to get out of Iraq!
So you support abandoning innocent Iraqis to the terrorists so you can pay for socialism here. I want to get out Iraq as well after we win and stailize a critical region. Back to the health care argument and Michael Moore's onesided idiocy. I offer this article by John Stossel on an interview with Moore.
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/JohnStossel/2007/07/18/michael_and_me. He articulates it very well.
Post a Comment