Letters to the Editor
Taliesan
Published Letters: 942 Editor's Choice: 19
-
shannonr
[Read the article: The Great Depression: The sequel]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I put myself badly, lets give it another bash.
You see, the way I see it, if there is that large gap you have a situation where the tax rate can afford to go up on the top end.
These taxes don't go up just for the sake of the poor though, they go up because you have expenses and they need to be paid.
The wealth gap would not be an issue if America was in a surplus position, but when that wealth gap is present and you are in a huge deficit position, you need to consider the super-wealthy as your first source of income.
The gap would not be so wide, if the wealthy really needed that extra money.
Now of course some of this additional money goes into wealth redistribution, it has to. The guys you hire to fix your roads, will be poorer than your average CEO - but the trick is not to simply give money away, but rather find ways to make that money work for the country.
What your argument seemed to me to be about (I could have misread what you meant) was the idea that the income gap is meaningless. It isn't, it points to the most painful truth of how to get out of trouble, the truth that FDR figured out and got called a "Class traitor" for, that the rich can afford to pay higher taxes.
The trouble is, the rich are also the guys who own your media and your government. This means that this source of potential money gets ignored, and the general idea of higher taxes is sold as being about giving the money away to the poor.
This is also why in the past, income disparity often predicted social collapse - the rich were comparatively sheltered tax-wise, which meant higher taxes on the poor, which meant revolution as the poor got sick of starving.
-
Yes Clark
[Read the article: Tom the Dancing Bug]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]We should really rather listen to the "sensible" voices that cost the Democrats all three houses from 2000 to 2006, who want us to have the candidate who endorsed the opposing party's presidential candidate.
You know, those Democrats who supported the war because it was more politically expedient to kill hundreds of thousands of people, than to risk getting called a traitor.
The Democrats who voted for the war without even having bothered to read the full NIE. After all, most of those people weren't Americans so they don't matter right?
The Democrats who when faced with a president whose unpopularity is second only to Nixon, who is noted for approving of torture, who violated American treaties, whose administration is notable for the brazen manner in which it shelters the corrupt, who has done more to destroy everything America stands for than the bloody Soviet Union, took impeachment off the table.
Or are you saying we should listen to the "Conservatives" who bankrupted America, got America stuck in two wars, dramatically failed on American security on 9/11, actually admitted to treating government contracts as political favours, and had one of the only partisan corruption scandals in America's history (K-Street)?
In short:
Given the choice between the "sensible" , the Republicans and those dirty Liberals, after this last few years?
I'll take my chances with the liberals.
-
My 3 a.m advert idea.
[Read the article: Yet another "3 a.m." ad released]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]It is high noon and your politicians are relying on you sleeping in while they wreck your country.
Wake up America.
-
If your kids enjoy camping
[Read the article: Our kids want to go to Christian summer camp]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Try sending them to a different one.
http://www.camp-quest.org/
-
Mercedes von Uppity
[Read the article: Our kids want to go to Christian summer camp]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]So when your kid comes home and says that he or she is joining the Klan or attending Klan meetings, I am sure you will feel the same way.
-
A few things
[Read the article: Americans more ready for a black president than a woman?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]1: Joan, have you come clean about your obvious bias yet? Seriously, endorse already you aren't fooling anyone.
2: This poll does not reflect the American people's view of race or sex - the context is such that "Woman" equals Hillary, who has always had high negatives, particularly amongst the youth vote, the educated vote, the black vote, the conservative vote and the liberal vote. All groups she has pissed off at some point. That Hillary has higher negatives is not exactly recent news.
3: Are we really debating whether sexism or racism is worse in America? Isn't this like debating whether it is worse to swallow melted or shattered glass? They are both bad.
-
Okay, so you are basically pissed at
[Read the article: Why Hillary Clinton should be winning]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Obama running the race the way it is, rather than the way you wish it would be.
Plus, you are blaming Obama, for Florida and Michigan breaking the rules and getting punished by the Democratic PTBs for it. Yeah that makes a looot of sense, after all, the rules are the rules except when they disadvantage your candidate.
Now, the major hole in your logic is assuming that the race strategy would have been the same if it had been run under a "Winner takes all" ideology. Obama's campaign would run a different race entirely, with a far greater focus on the big states. Hillary would likely have adapted her strategy accordingly too.
-
The difference in the two camps
[Read the article: Barack Obama in suspended animation]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Hillary's supporters started out by saying that Obama wasn't "Black enough" and now, well they moan that he is too quick to play the race card.
Religion? Same thing.
Hillary's supporters whined at a point that Obama wasn't tough enough. Well, now that the pressure is on, the Hillary supporters are whining about him being too tough.
Being a Hillary supporter seems contingent on being able to hold two conflicting ideas in your mind at the same time, as Obama's record is both filled with bad things, and non-existant according to her supporters.
Now I am no genius, I don't speak for anybody other than myself, but surely, surely you Hillbots could come up with a coherent line of attack at some point. You know, one that requires something of an attention span for us to really buy?
Because right now, Hillary is losing.