Letters to the Editor
Reality-based Liberal
Published Letters: 774 Editor's Choice: 100
-
Clinton Inevitability
[Read the article: GOP debate winner: Hillary Clinton]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I echo minnesinger5's sentiments; it's so depressing. And I also appreciate ktwdawg doing the research. We don’t need our media choosing our candidate for us before the primary, and Salon is as guilty as the rest in settling on the inevitability of Clinton. So few articles over the last months on the details of each candidate’s proposals, let along articles juxtaposing those plans with facts and alternatives. Instead we get a shell game: all the relayed information is a diversion from what's underneath.
For example, Hillary’s healthcare and retirement plans have received no real analysis (I recall some useless piece of crap by Shapiro on the healthcare plan). Both plans take the central component of GOP legislation from Gingrich on: give a chunk of taxpayer money to people who can afford to pay taxes or save money, then make them give it to private corporations in return for what will surely be shitty services (i.e. make the poor hand-deliver the tax cuts to the corporations/campaign donors).
Who can imagine that the “investor” under Clinton’s retirement plan -- someone who has, at most, a couple grand a year to invest -- is going to be anything other than part of a big cushion for his investment firm’s influential customers? These Clinton “investors” will be the last to get in on a good thing and out on a bad thing, and all the while they’ll be paying fees. What’s more, Clinton “pays” for this plan by freezing Bush’s estate tax cut in place! The audacity to assume the public is dumb enough not to notice that her plan is also a tax cut for the rich is just breathtaking, and yet there’s no coverage in Salon.
The healthcare plan is just as bad – in fact it mirrors a GOP plan that dates back to President Clinton’s GOP Congress. “Here’s a little bit of money, good luck funding a policy. Problem solved.” Our tax dollars will go straight to private insurance companies who will probably rip off the poor who try to use those policies, and all in the name of “bringing healthcare to everyone.” What bullshit. At least people see it coming with Bush. Salon certainly doesn’t think that a comparison between Clinton’s approach and Gingrich’s is worthwhile; I bet a lot of readers would.
-
I don't get it Tim
[Read the article: The Times on Iowa: Condescend much?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Because racism is bad, it can't exist among Democratic voters?
-
You Don't Need to Look at the Donations
[Read the article: Will Bill's dough make trouble for Hillary?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Look at Clinton's policies.
Both her heathcare and retirement policies give taxpayer dollars to citizens, who must then turn those dollars over to private health insurers or private investment firms, who will give those citizens rock-bottom service in return. In other words, this is a tax cut for corporations, with a twist: America's poor will hand deliver these tax dollars in the name of "helping the poor."
A decade ago this would be a dead-in-the-water right-wing scheme by the Gingrich Congress; now it is the policy of the leading Democratic presidential candidate. How far we've come.
-
Tag Team Rightward Shift
[Read the article: John Edwards' dark leftist America]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]O'Reilly attacks anyone who hints at moving to the left of the last six years and the mainstream media treats such people as trivial, if they cover them at all.
This is part and parcel of the longstanding tradition of giving Americans only options that won't stand in the way to the return to robber baron times -- in fact, won't stand in the way of a new, more comprehensive robber-baron era.
-
I just lost some respect for Lewis
[Read the article: Al who? Clinton announces another endorsement]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]He always seemed to know what was up -- what was best for America and the progressive movement. The only reason he would endorse Clinton is to attempt to secure more pull when she gets elected, which is not a good enough reason from my point of view. Clinton has shown that she will take the side of corporations over the middle and lower classes with her healthcare and retirement plans, and that would seem to be in direct opposition to Lewis' life battle.
(Not to say Obama has shown us he'd be any different -- he hasn't shown us much at all. But Lewis could have just held on to his endorsement.)
-
More Clinton Boosting
[Read the article: It depends on what the meaning of the word "I" is]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Why go out of your way to post a piece that spends most of its time guessing that Clinton is probably telling the truth?
In any case, Obama is right on this one. Not only should the President meet with nations we don't like, the President should do it in person. If we are threatening violence, or coups against nations, but don't think they're serious enough to engage face to face, then the USA is a piece of shit coward/bully.
Quick, name all the countries Venezuela and Iran have invaded in the last six years. How many coups did they back? To what locations outside their borders are they flying people to torture? In fact, I don't even know what Hugo Chavez has done to deserve such ire other than refuse to suck the dick of US corporations and accurately describe George Bush -- does that make him unworthy to meet face to face?
It seems we require no values from our leaders, only the ability to navigate the right-wing press and corporate agendas without appearing as vile and George Bush. Big deal.
-
Re Jeffrey P. Harrison
[Read the article: It depends on what the meaning of the word "I" is]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Maybe other, low-level folks nail out the details of agreements, but visiting heads of state you are threatening, face to face, shows that you aren't just a big-state terrorist.
-
He's a uniter, not a divider.
[Read the article: "You don't have to get snippy about this"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]