Letters to the Editor
Holly McLachlan
Published Letters: 543 Editor's Choice: 3
-
Appropriate Responses
[Read the article: Amnesty Day for Bush and lawbreaking telecoms]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]@proximity
http://letters.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/02/12/amnesty_day/permalink/1a442ba7ea4461a7df25c8ba7188d309.html
I couldn't help but notice that you skipped right past this response on your way to the "Go Cheney Yourself" reaction.
Is it your habit to ignore reasoned and appropiate responses to your posts because they would interfere with the namecalling, overgeneralization and basic misrepresentation that constitutes the bread and butter of your contributions here? -- Paul Dirks
I can't help but note that he makes a point of insulting Glenn in each opening letter he posts -- then he evinces great distaste and contempt when some fool(s) respond in kind -- and really only in kind. The distinction between "Go Cheney yourself" and "Glenn is a stupid, petty man" seems rather slim. But, let us not doubt the extent and true nature of his delicacy -- it stems from the same fine, vaunted source as his sense of morality!
The fact remains that when it comes to the debate over FISA, the assumption of bad faith is only rational. -- Paul Dirks
When dealing with any government, it is the only position that is rational. The Founders were fairly clear that governing bodies, groups of humans -- committees if you will -- are naturally self-corrupting entities. But, they had even less respect for the Divine Right of kings. Which is what Elephantman, shooter242, P.W. and the boy geniuses of the WSJ editorial page are really aiming for:
Dictatorship
Monarchy
One Great-Man rule in the face of a war on a tactic the will always plague civilized society -- terrorism.
-
An explication of the self-evident, for the sake of my conscience
[Read the article: Amnesty Day for Bush and lawbreaking telecoms]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]...On the basis of my assertion that those Democrats who voted against Glenn might have been acting in good faith, certain posters have concluded that I, among others, wish to see a Monarchy, a Dictatorship and One Man Rule (you'd have to ask them how this is distinct from dictatorship). [...] it seems that even the thought of people to the right are such an incendiary around here that the fire pretty much lights and burns itself. -- Proximity Warning
My belief that you are in favor of too much power ceded into the hands of one man is based on your support of the immunity provision inserted into the PAA, not on your thesis that some Democrats who voted with the Republicans did so in good faith. The latter is possible, but unlikely given the way they've been repeatedly, publicly humiliated by this administration. There are a couple of old GI generation relics who may have made their votes on this basis, but it's hard to tell, given how thoroughly greased they were by the telecom lobbyists.
If you don't support the telecom immunity provision, why don't you say so? Leaving the audience hanging on this score would suggest that you're a troll. Is bloating the thread with Kitticisms in order to drown out the contributions of a pow wow or ondelette your main intent?
Given your tendency to insult Glenn in each opening letter you post to his comments pages -- and the stagy high dudgeon that characterizes your every follow up -- it is hard to believe that you have any valid intent in posting to this forum.
-
Tax-a-rama: the Cry Me a River Episode
[Read the article: Amnesty Day for Bush and lawbreaking telecoms]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]re: The NIT [proposed by Friedman in 1962] would thus be a mirror image of the regular tax system.
You're too late to the party, that system has been in force for quite some time now. It's called the EITC. That coupled with child care credits (mo money) is a very effective safety net, no?
No. I actually qualified for the additional child credit for a year or 2 after my husband's death; it's chickenfeed to put it charitably. The EITC has a higher cap but in order to qualify you need to be truly poor; there is an assets-based cut-off. If you (as a hypothetical poor, working mother) have any money in the bank it's not accessible. I happen to believe that is the way it should be, but it is only there for those living paycheck-to-paycheck.
My point was that there was a high end cutoff at around $170,000 so the largest taxpayers get nothing, subsidizing the rest of the country. That is the definition of wealth redistribution.
Actually there is another class of taxpayers who 'subsidize the country' irrespective of income bracket -- single people. I can only sequester half as much money from taxation as a married couple -- for retirement, for my child's education, in the sale of a house, etc. The tax code is written in such a way as to give the bereaved about 3 years of equality before we're kicked back down to the status of young adults in terms of exemptions, credits, etc. The offset, and it is considerable, is the social security check that all bereaved children receive until they graduate high school. It hasn't escaped my attention that ultra-rightists are quite enamored of the idea of doing away with it. But their track record on actually address tax code inequities that affect the upper middle class (AMT) is... democratesque.
The more interesting point is that Bush can literally give away money, and STILL no one will share the love. BDS seems to be incurable. -- shooter242
If he hadn't mortgaged my daughter's future to east Asia in order to do so I might 'feel the love' shooter242 -- but given the way he's squandered our many resources I find it .... inappropriate.
I'm sorry bud, but when it comes to actual nickel & dime issues I tend to agree with prunes -- you ultra-rightists are either screwing yourselves by supporting people/ideology that are not in your fiscal best interest, or you are among the very tiny hyper-elite that are likely to benefit from the decimation of America's vibrant middle class.