2014/03/Ziad K Abdelnour Addressing FPC Event.jpg
Print Print This Page

Blog

Why Will a Clinton Presidency Be a Disaster for America

By : Ziad K. Abdelnour | 29 August 2016
Please Share!TwitterFacebooktumblrGoogle+PinterestLinkedIn

For all the diehard clueless Clinton morons out there who still think that crooked Hillary will have a positive influence on America if ever elected, let me share with you the reality of what will happen if the now confirmed Parkinson’s disease stricken candidate ever gets to power.

On the foreign policy front - In the worst-case scenario and in pursuit of a muscular approach to confronting ISIS, she will make three related decisions that doom American foreign policy to another decade of turmoil, casualties, and terrorism at an astronomical cost.

The first decision will be to send thousands of American ground troops to eradicate the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria. U.S. military leaders have made clear publicly that they believe that as many as 50,000 troops will be necessary to dig ISIS out of its strongholds in Syria and Iraq. Given this and the dangers of urban warfare, the cost in American casualties will likely be significant. Further, ISIS could disperse its fighters among the general population, returning to either guerrilla or terrorist strategy. The United States was not able to prevent terrorist attacks in Iraq or the rise of ISIS after the invasion of Iraq in 2003. There is little reason to imagine it could do so under President Clinton in 2017 when conditions in Iraq are even worse. Moreover, this time the fight is not limited to Iraq. ISIS presents an even greater challenge in many ways in Syria, where an expanded U.S. campaign will clash with Russian interests, which include supporting Assad against American-support rebel groups. And let’s not forget the nascent ISIS foothold in Libya, the scene of Hillary Clinton’s greatest triumph as Secretary of State (and President Obama’s greatest self-acknowledged foreign policy mistake). Libya suffers from a political situation heavily reminiscent of both Syria and Iraq, with multiple competing factions all battling for position to take power, operating under extreme duress thanks in part to the presence of the Islamic State. Any American intervention in Libya inevitably means favoring some factions over others, not to mention killing lots of Libyans, including civilians, all of which will add to the long list of people with grievances against the United States.

Clinton’s second ill-fated decision will be to attempt to restore and stabilize Iraq. Regardless of how well the military phase of the campaign goes Iraq, which is already a huge mess, will be in much worse shape afterwards. President Clinton, with the support of many Republicans in Congress, will argue that the only way to prevent ISIS from rising again is to help Iraq’s devastated society and economy to recover, which in turn will require a large and permanent military presence. The notion of stationing 50,000 troops in Iraq forever as the United States has done in South Korea is a horrendously costly prospect, and one that will likely have serious destabilizing effects on the rest of the Middle East. But Iraq is not South Korea; the U.S. cannot expect to spend fifty or sixty peaceful years watching over Iraq. The military victory will have done absolutely nothing to resolve the fundamental sectarian and political conflicts that have riven Iraq since the fall of Saddam Hussein. Nor will the victory have made the U.S. any more capable of fostering stability and democracy. Beyond this we cannot forget that ISIS itself grew out of the chaos that followed the 2003 invasion. It seems safe to assume that another intervention would raise, not lower, the risks of future terrorist attacks against the United States and its allies.

The third decision President Clinton will make is to reverse President Obama’s plan to draw down the U.S. military presence in Afghanistan, where the Taliban now controls more territory than at any point since 2001. The rationale for more aggressive action in Afghanistan will echo the rationale for taking on ISIS in Syria and Iraq. As Clinton said on the campaign trail, “We have invested a lot of blood and a lot of treasure in trying to help that country and we can’t afford for it to become an outpost of the Taliban and [Islamic State] one more time, threatening us, threatening the larger world.” And yet, as with Iraq, all the evidence indicates that a more aggressive military campaign will fail for all the same reasons the policy has failed thus far. Despite 2,300 American casualties and roughly a trillion dollars spent in Afghanistan to date, fifteen years of intense effort has resulted in a country still unable to survive without life support. The simple fact is that Afghanistan’s fractured society and almost non-existent economy are incapable of providing the necessary counterweight to the Taliban. The result is that the costs of such an operation would far outweigh the benefits.

How likely is this nightmare scenario? All three decisions are entirely plausible given the decisions made by the previous two presidents. Hillary Clinton’s own behavior as Secretary of State and her comments on the campaign trail only make them more so.

On the economic policy front – Let me try to summarize this section by telling you in here as a preface that the candidate is a master when it comes to wishful thinking.
I listened over the last year to all of her speeches on economic policy – bar none – and I can honestly confirm to you that the woman’s presentations for a Wall Streeter like me were an exercise not in economics, but in mythology.

A seemingly trivial but nonetheless illuminating example of her fundamental intellectual unseriousness on economic questions throughout her speeches was her repetition of the ancient, repeatedly discredited myth that Henry Ford raised his workers’ wages on the theory that doing so would enable them to buy Ford cars, thus increasing his company’s profit. Nothing of the sort ever happened, in reality, and the economic assumptions behind this myth — that one can spend one’s way to prosperity — is preposterous. Economically speaking, this is flat-Earth stuff, pure hokum from a woman who likes to smugly proclaim: “I believe in science!” It is economically illiterate, but Mrs. Clinton sincerely believes it, arguing that, in the same vein, raising the federal minimum wage would actually help U.S. employers by giving consumers more money to spend at their businesses. That money of course must come from somewhere, and where it comes from is businesses (who, of course, pass on some of those costs in a variety of ways). Some consumers would have more to spend, and businesses would have less to spend.

I guess Mrs. Clinton, who does not know very much about any business other than charging $10,000 a minute for speeches (which is, to be sure, an excellent business model) perhaps has never been informed that the biggest customer of the typical small American business is another business, small and family-owned firms making the majority of their sales to commercial operations rather than to individual consumers.
The funnies of all is that her policy isn’t bootstrapping — it’s pure magical thinking. What it in fact resembles rather closely is the “trickle down” theory of economics that exists almost exclusively in the minds and rhetoric of opponents of the Reagan-era policies defamed under that label: Let the money slosh around through the right sluices, and it will somehow magically multiply itself.

Mrs. Clinton proposes making large gifts to wealthy people and politically connected businesses in the hopes that doing so will make prosperity trickle down to ordinary workers and families in the form of jobs and higher wages.Mrs. Clinton insists — again, preposterously — that Donald Trump’s economic proposals are little more than a “more extreme” version of Reagan-era policies. About that, two things: First, it simply is not true. Donald Trump is very much an economic interventionist whose vision is deeply at odds with the free-enterprise values of the Reagan movement. Second, that’s a pity: Those 1980s policies catapulted the U.S. economy out of Carter-era stagflation and malaise, producing the boom that continued, happily for Bill Clinton, until the turn of the century, give or take an inevitable bump or two.

Bottom Line: There is little reason to think that Mrs. Clinton’s policy would be successful. She proposes another Obama-style stimulus package, albeit on a smaller scale, only $275 billion instead of Barack Obama’s nearly $800 billion political slush fund. One would think that, having spent the better part of $1 trillion on economic stimulus and purported public goods, the United States would have a great deal of gleaming new infrastructure and smooth, open roads to show for it. Instead, at least three substantial studies of the Obama stimulus concluded that whatever effects it may have had were too small to detect. Not too small if you were a Solyndra executive, of course, or a happy beneficiary of stimulus pork for other politically influential businesses. But too small for an econometrician or an ordinary American looking for a better job.

Meanwhile, she proposes to out-socialist President Obama on the matter of health care, insisting on the creation of a so-called public option, i.e. a directly government-run health-care system designed and intended to make genuine competition in a functional marketplace eventually impossible, leaving the country with a federal health-care monopoly — an entire nation on Medicaid.

The spending side of Mrs. Clinton’s ledger is familiar enough stuff; so is the tax side. She lambasted Donald Trump’s proposal to abolish the death tax — a ruinous levy grounded in ancient class-warfare superstitions, which often falls on family-owned farms and small businesses — claiming that Trump had proposed this in order to benefit himself, being a man who presumably will leave an unusually large estate to his heirs. Trump is a mixed bag on taxes, on economic policy generally, and on everything else — but asserting bad faith is a poor substitute for genuine economic analysis. The death tax raises a minuscule amount of federal revenue, and exists almost solely for the moral satisfaction of hate-fueled leftists on the Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders model. Mrs. Clinton’s defense of the death tax is at least as self-interested as Trump’s criticism of it, being an obvious sop to the economically illiterate college students who made up much of Senator Sanders’s movement — the same people she is trying to bribe with her laughable proposal for tuition-free university education for the middle class.

This is, of course, an exercise in counting the angels dancing on Washington pinheads: If she were to become president, Mrs. Clinton might propose this to Congress, which, in all likelihood, will not comply with her demands, provided that Trump’s current downward trajectory does not leave us with a Democrat-dominated Congress in January. But it is a statement of Mrs. Clinton’s priorities, which are giving handouts to her corporate allies, strengthening the whip hand of politicians over health care, bribing the Sanders-Warren element with new entitlements, and otherwise engaging in a great deal of wishful thinking about how this gets paid for and its long-term economic consequences.

That’s Hillary Rodham Clinton in short: Partly dishonest, partly ignorant, misrepresenting the very economic policies whose results are the sole reason for any surviving nostalgia about the presidency of her intern-bothering, perjuring, sanctimonious husband.

It is the worst sort of superstition to believe that putting another Clinton in the White House will revive the economic boom of the 1990s. Mrs. Clinton instead offers the cutting-edge thinking of 1964, when she isn’t distracted by the freshest ideas from 1916.

Now that you have all the facts folks, think carefully come to voting in November. If you think that Donald Trump, a self-made billionaire who ran many businesses and employed thousands of people doesn’t have any experience but that she does; just look closely at what experience and track record she had so far and what she is most likely to do if elected to be our next President of the United States.

We are in for a very difficult four years . Hillary is not the answer only more problems for the backbone of this great country.

WWIII.. Oh wait, it already started.
Time to wake up America….

Leave a Reply

Top