Last night the voters spoke in Iowa and delivered victories to Democrat Hillary Clinton and Republican Ted Cruz.
In terms of delegates, both winners simply received the majority of, not all. Thus Sen. Cruz ended up with eight delegates. Second place finisher, Donald J. Trump, and third place finisher, Sen. Marco Rubio ended up with seven delegates each. On the Democrat side, Mrs. Clinton gets 23 delegates and her opponent, Sen. Bernie Sanders will get 21 delegates.
A lot of criticism is thrown Iowa's way (as well as New Hampshire) being the first in the nation to vote in the respected party primaries. I think that they are good states to see how a candidate can deal with organization. Clearly Sen. Cruz out hustled all the other Republican candidates. His team singled out the state's conservative, evangelical Christian voters and Sen. Cruz scored their votes. Like it or not, the Donald did not take the old fashioned retail politicking and organization seriously and it showed. Also, sorry but skipping the last debate before the caucus did not help. No matter what excuse the Donald uses to not participate in the debate, many caucus participants said that eventually determined their vote. And who would have thought Marco Rubio would have had such a strong third-place finish looking at the polls?
As I noted last night, clearly there was something called Marcomentum that catapulted Sen. Rubio to nearly a huge upset and forcing the Donald to a potential third place finish. That is breathing life into a campaign that really needs it.
Ted Cruz went one way too long in his victory speech. And while his religious references did not bother me, I thought about the rest of the nation and places that would be totally turned off by such overt Christianity. Sen. Cruz will have to find a way to be less evangelical Christian preacher and more able to really expand the base of his support to those people he, and I, believe he needs to win a general election campaign. We will see if Sen. Cruz can pivot in much more secular New Hampshire.
Donald J. Trump has to begin to take this campaign seriously if he is really in it to win it. The Donald will have to spend real money for organization and broadcast advertising. And he will have to participate in debates no matter what.
Marco Rubio needs to continue to build on the Marcomentum and get to second place in New Hampshire, simple as that.
For the Democrats, Mrs. Clinton has to be humiliated that she could not put Bernie Sanders, a self-avowed "democratic" socialist, away in Iowa. I will say it now. The Democrats are that far to the left that I will not be surprised if Sen. Sanders ends up the Democrat nominee. What we are seeing is the left-wing crack up and the end of the Obama coalition. And the only saving grace for Mrs. Clinton is the whole Super-delegates that are there to guarantee an "establishment" candidate wins the nomination. We shall see but there is no doubt Mrs. Clinton is going to lose badly to the senator from next-door Vermont next Tuesday.
The funny thing about all of this is that it has not made the race any easier for either political party. It is all still up in the air. And maybe for a while.
Showing posts with label Bernie Sanders. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bernie Sanders. Show all posts
Tuesday, February 02, 2016
Saturday, October 17, 2015
The Cost Of The Scandinavia Welfare State
With Sen. Bernie Sanders (I/D-Vt.) running for president, he is the closest candidate that promotes a Scandinavia-style welfare state. it is worth analyzing what the cost of such a state is really like.
Scandinavia are also referred to as the Nordic countries of Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden.
The dirty little secret is that there is one three word reason the Scandinavian nations can afford a welfare state with a dab of capitalism.
The United States.
One of the reasons all the Scandinavian nations can do what they do is that they spend very little on defense spending. They all have small armed forces, including marginal navies and equally marginal air forces. They joined NATO and thus depend on the United States with it's still strong defense budgets and being the world's last superpower. Even with the cuts in defense spending, the Scandinavians can depend on the United States to help rescue them if there is some kind of military conflict.
So why is the Scandinavian model something the United States should avoid at all costs.
One, it is expensive with questionable results.
Two, it does not work.
Let's take a look at someone that lives in Denmark and see what it is like to live there.
In this article from earlier this year, the writer, Michael Booth, makes the point that American liberals/leftists love to point out the fact a McDonald's worker can easily make $15 an hour. And that more than 50% are sliced off the top in taxes. In fact for the average Scandinavian, as much as 60% of their income is taken away in taxes before they see what they can take home. In return there are a lot of "freebies" including free life-time education from cradle to grave. Same for health care for this is the land of single-payer, government-run health care. There are boatloads of mandates to the so-called private-sector economy that make it such almost in name only. Mandated, paid maternity leave for both parents, vacation time, sick time. You get the picture.
Here is an idea of the cost of living in the capital city, Copenhagen. This site says that of this writing, the Danish krone is 6.57 to the American dollar. So let's look at the link of the cost of living to see how much a very average car, a Volkswagen Golf costs. It is an average of 275,273 krone or $41,898.48c. How much does that car cost in the United States? At the Volkswagen website, the starting price is $20.175. It is more than half off the Danish price.
Why is that?
Ahh, there is the Value Added Tax, better known as a VAT that is cooked into the price of many items, especially big ticket items. This would be a way that big-government proponents would like to fund their plans to offer free college for all and even pay for single-payer healthcare. Of course the downside is that people will not be inclined to buy big ticket items if they do not have to.
But if you have that new Volkswagen Golf, how much is gas gonna cost ya? \
Well, almost triple the price of gas in the States. How about $6.34c a gallon? A fill 'er up? If the Golf has a 17.5 gallon gas tank, a cool $110.95c. Again, the tax is cooked in the price and thus it is hidden. Which is how it is in Denmark and the rest of Scandinavia.
Wanna take the family, mom, dad and two kids to the local McDonalds? Well, four combo meals cost a total of 280 krone or 70 krone each. That is $10.65c each. Roughly what one would pay at an airport in the States.
High taxation and low productivity are a disaster and only now, with the massive declining native birthrates, there seems to be a willingness of all Scandinavian governments to take in mainly Middle East, Muslim immigrants. New taxpayers.
But another downside is the fact that when all is taken care of you by the state, one's total well being cannot always be dealt with by the state.
According to Mr. Booth, the Scandinavian nations lead the world in suicides and the taking of anti-depressants. Also, and this is a surprise, these nations also are European leaders in violence against women. In this article, the Scandinavians are prolific binge drinkers. In Finland, Russian-adjacent, the leading cause of death among men in alcoholism. It is the second leading cause of death among women.
What Scandinavia celebrates is averageness. It does not really celebrate success. It is why those that can get the hell out. In many Scandinavian nations, leading hockey players that land NHL contracts know that if they stay citizens of their native land it will be massively taxed. Many, not all but many, realize their success is not something the home nation appreciates except as a big tax and thus many become American citizens.
Averageness leads to lack of innovation and or drive. In other words, Bill Gates could not really do what he did in any Scandinavian nation. Medical advances do not happen as often as in other developed nations. It is not to say some advances have not occurred in Scandinavian nations. But overall, even today, it is the United States that leads to innovation and yes, drive.
When Sen. Sanders touts Scandinavia, especially Denmark, he is asking for America to give up it's unique role in the world and celebrate averageness that we do not want to celebrate or make national policy.
Scandinavia are also referred to as the Nordic countries of Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden.
The dirty little secret is that there is one three word reason the Scandinavian nations can afford a welfare state with a dab of capitalism.
The United States.
One of the reasons all the Scandinavian nations can do what they do is that they spend very little on defense spending. They all have small armed forces, including marginal navies and equally marginal air forces. They joined NATO and thus depend on the United States with it's still strong defense budgets and being the world's last superpower. Even with the cuts in defense spending, the Scandinavians can depend on the United States to help rescue them if there is some kind of military conflict.
So why is the Scandinavian model something the United States should avoid at all costs.
One, it is expensive with questionable results.
Two, it does not work.
Let's take a look at someone that lives in Denmark and see what it is like to live there.
In this article from earlier this year, the writer, Michael Booth, makes the point that American liberals/leftists love to point out the fact a McDonald's worker can easily make $15 an hour. And that more than 50% are sliced off the top in taxes. In fact for the average Scandinavian, as much as 60% of their income is taken away in taxes before they see what they can take home. In return there are a lot of "freebies" including free life-time education from cradle to grave. Same for health care for this is the land of single-payer, government-run health care. There are boatloads of mandates to the so-called private-sector economy that make it such almost in name only. Mandated, paid maternity leave for both parents, vacation time, sick time. You get the picture.
Here is an idea of the cost of living in the capital city, Copenhagen. This site says that of this writing, the Danish krone is 6.57 to the American dollar. So let's look at the link of the cost of living to see how much a very average car, a Volkswagen Golf costs. It is an average of 275,273 krone or $41,898.48c. How much does that car cost in the United States? At the Volkswagen website, the starting price is $20.175. It is more than half off the Danish price.
Why is that?
Ahh, there is the Value Added Tax, better known as a VAT that is cooked into the price of many items, especially big ticket items. This would be a way that big-government proponents would like to fund their plans to offer free college for all and even pay for single-payer healthcare. Of course the downside is that people will not be inclined to buy big ticket items if they do not have to.
But if you have that new Volkswagen Golf, how much is gas gonna cost ya? \
Well, almost triple the price of gas in the States. How about $6.34c a gallon? A fill 'er up? If the Golf has a 17.5 gallon gas tank, a cool $110.95c. Again, the tax is cooked in the price and thus it is hidden. Which is how it is in Denmark and the rest of Scandinavia.
Wanna take the family, mom, dad and two kids to the local McDonalds? Well, four combo meals cost a total of 280 krone or 70 krone each. That is $10.65c each. Roughly what one would pay at an airport in the States.
High taxation and low productivity are a disaster and only now, with the massive declining native birthrates, there seems to be a willingness of all Scandinavian governments to take in mainly Middle East, Muslim immigrants. New taxpayers.
But another downside is the fact that when all is taken care of you by the state, one's total well being cannot always be dealt with by the state.
According to Mr. Booth, the Scandinavian nations lead the world in suicides and the taking of anti-depressants. Also, and this is a surprise, these nations also are European leaders in violence against women. In this article, the Scandinavians are prolific binge drinkers. In Finland, Russian-adjacent, the leading cause of death among men in alcoholism. It is the second leading cause of death among women.
What Scandinavia celebrates is averageness. It does not really celebrate success. It is why those that can get the hell out. In many Scandinavian nations, leading hockey players that land NHL contracts know that if they stay citizens of their native land it will be massively taxed. Many, not all but many, realize their success is not something the home nation appreciates except as a big tax and thus many become American citizens.
Averageness leads to lack of innovation and or drive. In other words, Bill Gates could not really do what he did in any Scandinavian nation. Medical advances do not happen as often as in other developed nations. It is not to say some advances have not occurred in Scandinavian nations. But overall, even today, it is the United States that leads to innovation and yes, drive.
When Sen. Sanders touts Scandinavia, especially Denmark, he is asking for America to give up it's unique role in the world and celebrate averageness that we do not want to celebrate or make national policy.
Wednesday, June 17, 2015
Why Hillary Will NOT Be President
I know, I know that the granny in the pants suit, Hillary Clinton, surprised me and is running for president of the United States even though I predicted that she would not.
One surprise does not mean that it's all over and we should just accept the premise that because of institutional biases, Mrs. Clinton will be elected president of the United States.
In fact, this is beginning to remind me of 2008 when Mrs. Clinton, with all the same biases for her, still failed to become the Democrat nominee for president. She lost to a virtual unknown senator from Illinois named Barack Obama.
Right now there are two announced candidates besides Mrs. Clinton seeking the Democrat nomination for president.
They are the former governor of Maryland, Martin O'Malley and open socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders (I/D-Vt.).
The leftywhore media is dismissing these two as nothing but gnats in the March of Hillary to the Democrat nod.
Again, I will remind you of 2008.
Yet why is the open socialist, Sen. Sanders, at this point only within 10 points of Mrs. Clinton in this poll? In New Hampshire? And while she has a comfortable lead with women, men support Sen. Sanders. And what about this poll showing Mrs. Clinton with a 12 point lead over Sen. Sanders also in New Hampshire? Even if one takes into account a rather high margin of error, at best for Mrs. Clinton she could be ahead of Sen. Sanders by 18%. At worst she could only be six points ahead of Sen. Sanders. And while this poll shows Mrs. Clinton far ahead in Iowa and South Carolina, these are states that favor organization (Iowa) and establishment (South Carolina). Average the two polls out and Mrs. Clinton is only ahead of Sen. Sanders in New Hampshire by 11 points. Less than a year before the first in the nation primary casts it's vote.
I wrote seemingly long ago that the Democrat party has turned far left. They nominated the Dear Leader, President Obama, twice. And Mrs. Clinton has been playing catch up ever since. The reality is that Sen. Sanders reflects probably of majority of self-identified Democrats than Mrs. Clinton. And somewhere in between is the former governor, Mr. O'Malley, who will gain traction. I believe that it will be a serious 3 person race for the Democrat nomination.
In the end, for all the advantages of money, Democrat establishment support and seemingly favorable terrain, Mrs. Clinton may not be able to overcome the left turn of her party.
And that is the reason I do not believe in the end Mrs. Clinton will not be the nominee of the Democrat party. The party has moved decisively to the left and Mrs. Clinton is walking a tight rope that she will more than likely fall from. The only thing is whether it will be to Mr. O'Malley or Sen. Sanders.
One surprise does not mean that it's all over and we should just accept the premise that because of institutional biases, Mrs. Clinton will be elected president of the United States.
In fact, this is beginning to remind me of 2008 when Mrs. Clinton, with all the same biases for her, still failed to become the Democrat nominee for president. She lost to a virtual unknown senator from Illinois named Barack Obama.
Right now there are two announced candidates besides Mrs. Clinton seeking the Democrat nomination for president.
They are the former governor of Maryland, Martin O'Malley and open socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders (I/D-Vt.).
The leftywhore media is dismissing these two as nothing but gnats in the March of Hillary to the Democrat nod.
Again, I will remind you of 2008.
Yet why is the open socialist, Sen. Sanders, at this point only within 10 points of Mrs. Clinton in this poll? In New Hampshire? And while she has a comfortable lead with women, men support Sen. Sanders. And what about this poll showing Mrs. Clinton with a 12 point lead over Sen. Sanders also in New Hampshire? Even if one takes into account a rather high margin of error, at best for Mrs. Clinton she could be ahead of Sen. Sanders by 18%. At worst she could only be six points ahead of Sen. Sanders. And while this poll shows Mrs. Clinton far ahead in Iowa and South Carolina, these are states that favor organization (Iowa) and establishment (South Carolina). Average the two polls out and Mrs. Clinton is only ahead of Sen. Sanders in New Hampshire by 11 points. Less than a year before the first in the nation primary casts it's vote.
I wrote seemingly long ago that the Democrat party has turned far left. They nominated the Dear Leader, President Obama, twice. And Mrs. Clinton has been playing catch up ever since. The reality is that Sen. Sanders reflects probably of majority of self-identified Democrats than Mrs. Clinton. And somewhere in between is the former governor, Mr. O'Malley, who will gain traction. I believe that it will be a serious 3 person race for the Democrat nomination.
In the end, for all the advantages of money, Democrat establishment support and seemingly favorable terrain, Mrs. Clinton may not be able to overcome the left turn of her party.
And that is the reason I do not believe in the end Mrs. Clinton will not be the nominee of the Democrat party. The party has moved decisively to the left and Mrs. Clinton is walking a tight rope that she will more than likely fall from. The only thing is whether it will be to Mr. O'Malley or Sen. Sanders.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)