Letters to the Editor
walter_map
Published Letters: 1444 Editor's Choice: 20
-
New Deal Democrat
[Read the article: What Hillary would do tomorrow, if she could]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I'm not convinced that either Andrew or Salon readers understand that "fiscal stimulus" is inherently inflationary
It's not inherently inflationary. The economic distortion created by 'fiscal stimulus' does not necessarily, or 'inherently', have to express itself as inflation. It can be expressed in other detrimental ways.
The reason inflation has been low for the last 25 years is because economic distortions have been expressed largely as debt, rather than as inflation. Not only is that debt now so large that it can never be repaid, it is now so large that it can no longer be controlled. But financial practices can allow for inflation to be kept under control all the way down to national bankruptcy.
Now that the US has reached its limit of feasible debt creation, it's having to resort to other means to maintain solvency. The most destructive of these is asset expropriation: the productive capacity of the US is being sold off to pay for consumption. The country's biggest export is jobs. The size of US debt guarantees that US productive capability must continue to deteriorate until there's nothing left worth selling off.
The corporations that run the US have no interest in the country other than as a corpse to be stripped of its wealth and as a staging ground for military conquest. It's what they've always wanted, and that's what they got:
We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated Governments in the world - no longer a Government of free opinion, no longer a Government by conviction and vote of the majority, but a Government by the opinion and duress of small groups of dominant men.
- Woodrow Wilson
Is it not so? And if not, why not?
-
New Deal Democrat
[Read the article: What Hillary would do tomorrow, if she could]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I'm against any government intervention to bail out homeowners who have take on too much debt.
Translation: "I'm against any government intervention to protect homeowners from con artist financiers."
You should not be arguing for the benefit of the flim-flam guys in the finance industry who gamed the system to rob homeowners. That's what Republicans are for.
You're not actually a "Democrat", are you?
-
Malusinka
[Read the article: What Hillary would do tomorrow, if she could]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]... a return to those rates is likely to reduce the precentage that the rich pay of total taxes paid.
You're arguing that tax cuts for the rich don't actually result in tax cuts for the rich, and that raising taxes on the rich amounts to a tax cut for the rich.
That's pretty silly.
In short, it is the really tiresome pit the middle class against the rich rhetoric that ignores the fact that the problem is Gov't spending and the amount of tax the Gov't has to levy to pay for the war in Iraq and Gov't pork.
You're mistaken. Nobody is ignoring that fact.
Most of that government spending is for the benefit of corporations. And you're ignoring the fact that the war in Iraq and the federal pork you deplore is also a symptom of the issue of "the middle class against the rich", since it is the rich, or more properly large corporations, which has gamed the system to get that war in Iraq and that federal pork.
These capitalists generally act harmoniously and in concert to fleece the people, and now that they have got into a quarrel with themselves, we are called upon to appropriate the people's money to settle the quarrel.
In short, her populist speech shows ignores economics.
So does yours. You're both evading the real issue, which is corporate control of the economy, the federal fiscal system, and the political system.
You're only allowed to vote for presidential candidates approved by corporations, and most other federal candidates as well. This gives you politicians who act for the benefit of corporations at the expense of the citizenry, which is to say, the rich against the middle class.
Don't you think that's a problem?
-
401kBoy
[Read the article: What Hillary would do tomorrow, if she could]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]For each of these "proposals" the effect would be another problem popping up.
Try coming up with one that wouldn't.
You can't.
It's unjust to expect others to do what isn't possible. But you do it anyway.
-
401kBoy
[Read the article: What Hillary would do tomorrow, if she could]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]A "solution" that simply shifts the problem around is no solution at all.
Translation: "Let's not control corporations and tax the rich to solve our problems, even though those are the causes."
I seek a candidate who knows that this nation faces real financial crisis, which can be traced back to our government's inability to control its spending.
The federal government can't control its spending because corporations don't want it to. They want the federal government to shovel money at them and to go into debt doing it.
You're dancing around that fact.
-
That's not journalism.
[Read the article: McCain spokesman John King of CNN]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]That's a free infomercial for McCain.
Corporations are always ready to do favors for their lapdogs.
-
New Deal Democrat
[Read the article: What Hillary would do tomorrow, if she could]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Your posts are so incoherent it's hard to know where to start in arguing with them
And you didn't. You just posted a lot of claptrap that's wilfully off the subject and indicates an intentional lack of reading comprehension.
In other words, wingnut, you're weaseling.
You lose.
-
GG
[Read the article: The Noxious Fruits of Hate Speech laws]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Empowering the State to proscribe and punish speech . . . never achieves its intended effect of suppressing or eliminating a particular view. If anything, it has the opposite effect, by driving it underground, thus preventing debate and exposure.
Exactly so.
Proximity Warning has every right to expose and discredit himself as an odious neoconservative hack. And that right should be protected.
-
Proximity Warning
[Read the article: The Noxious Fruits of Hate Speech laws]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]And I likewise would never want to see the day when a treasonous, ignorant, unAmerican lefty radical like you couldn't get his two cents in on an internet forum.
Really?
That would be remarkably liberal of you, except that we both know you don't mean a word of it. You are a radical right-wing reactionary, after all.