Letters to the Editor
Kevin C
Published Letters: 142 Editor's Choice: 23
-
I think some people are missing the point
[Read the article: The witch ain't dead, and Chris Matthews is a ding-dong]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]When they are attacking Hillary for going after Obama for his Senate voting record. It isn't hypocritical because she voted the same way--that is the whole point. The point is that it is calling into question attacking someone for being the candidate of the status quo when you've voted with them on many, many issues.
It does bring up, however, a big potential weakness for the Democrats in general--the only real candidates that we have are Senators. Voting records in Congress are easy to spin (especially since a lot of bills have everything including the kitchen sink crammed into them). Remember how it was easy to portray Kerry as a flip-flopper based on his votes? A Republican candidate who was a governor can potentially clobber our Senators--so maybe we shouldn't start hammering on Senate voting records early on...
That, I guess, is an argument for Obama, since he has the least amount of time to have been tarnished, but let's not be overly anxious about who voted for what and why.
I'm more concerned that Obama thinks you can improve healthcare without mandating coverage and confronting insurers and drug companies than whether he voted for the Patriot Act.
-
@russels
[Read the article: Ask the pilot]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Buzz, thanks for playing, but your nit picking is incorrect.
Here it is from the 2007 FedEx annual report: "These operating companies are primarily represented by Federal Express Corporation [bolding mine] ("FedEx Express"), the world's largest express transportation company..."
You'd think as a "business reporter" type, you'd bother to check OneSource or Hoover's or something to see if the company you claim doesn't exist is a subsidiary of a the parent (whose name, of course, you get right). Just because AMR Corp. exists, doesn't mean that American Airlines does not...
What do I win? A nit?
-
Drat, foiled again
[Read the article: Ask the pilot]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I suppose a "a the" construction isn't really in any style books...
-
@dcmeserve
[Read the article: Bank of Countrywide America]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]In case you are unfamiliar with the way bankruptcy works, equity holders generally get absolutely nothing. So, I'd consider that Countrywide execs (that probably own far more shares than you do) may know something that analysts don't, and be grateful for the pittance you get.
Vulture investing ain't for the weak hearted.
-
"To big to fail"
[Read the article: Bank of Countrywide America]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Two points:
1) BofA isn't already "to big to fail?" I'd have to disagree with you there.
2) Why does the 10% rule necessarily make sense--most other countries go about their merry way with far fewer banks that cover the entire country. That's not to say that there shouldn't be smaller banks, but the UK didn't really have a bank run up until 2007 and their market is significantly more concentrated (as is Canada's and many others). 10% doesn't really seem like an overwhelming share of deposits.
-
Expanding on Ramesees' comment
[Read the article: "We're all fascists now"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I agree completely that Goldberg is just redefining things as fascistic to make a point--and a facile point at that.
The Autobahn is fascistic because Fascists built it? Is the Volkswagen Beetle?
So does that make Dwight Eisenhower a fascist because he thought the interstate system was a great idea? Who knew?
I would have been interested in bringing up the Nazi's strident opposition to abortion. Goldberg made the "pro-life" point in the Terri Schiavo response but euthanasia is such a small portion of the overall pro-life canon, that the abortion issue would have been a good follow up query.
-
There is a reason to "clobber me now"
[Read the article: Recession medicine]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Look, the reason (some) economists feel like taking the lumps now is that in these situations taking your medicine now is generally less painful than in the future. It isn't a question of where we will be in 2 years time, it is a prediction that reflating a bubble, say, as a means of dealing with short-term economic pain in the long run.
There were quite a few voices (especially outside of the US) complaining that Greenspan was inflating a housing bubble to get the US out of the aftereffects of the dot com bubble. And you know what? They didn't know what was going to happen in terms of when, but they were pretty right on as far as the consequences.
A bigger recession back in the early 2000s might have helped to correct some of the imbalances we have--e.g. a huge current account deficit that is financing our lack of savings. Borrowing from other countries to finance asset bubbles is not sustainable--and the longer it continues the worse the readjustment will be.
So the question to me isn't "why not now?" it is more "why not 7 years ago?"
-
Response to moira kelly
[Read the article: Recession medicine]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Ok, but the political party that is most aligned with gun owners and gun ownership is the party that has done the most towards dismantling whatever safety net was in place for Americans. Perhaps those that can be convinced that cutting the estate tax to benefit the Paris Hilton is a good idea by calling it "the death tax" and wrapping it up with a "God, Guns, and Gays" social issue smokescreen deserve what they get.
If an economic collapse leads to a New New Deal, would that be bad from a safety-net perspective? If not why fear a readjustment.
Americans have been living beyond their means for at least 20, if not 50 years. We can't necessarily keep this up--the world is getting sick of financing our profligate ways, the dollar as a reserve currency is in jeopardy, and we are in danger of oil producers disconnecting the price of oil from the dollar.
I'd say we should retrench before it is too late. And if that means that people can't make it with the way things are, perhaps they'll start voting in their own economic interest instead of falling for warmed over trickle down economics over and over again.