Letters to the Editor
DrEast
Published Letters: 29
-
So what does Bush have to do with the economy?
[Read the article: George Bush's reality distortion field]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]While it's a telling indicator of his ignorance and the general level of our national political discourse, why is his opinion on the matter even relevant? The president has no actual authority or responsibility over the economic status of the nation, unless Congress presents him with a bill to pass or reject designed to influence it. It's just not his job.
And Congress just plain ain't equipped to deal with this sort of crisis. They get so much power from the way the basic banking system in this nation works, it's sickening. That beloved deficit spending is one aspect of this. So the odds of them passing along a good bill to Bush (who is also far more likely to side with the fine upstanding members of the Federal Reserve Board than object to them on any sort of constitutional basis, outmoded document that it is) are nigh nonexistent.
-
I must disagree.
[Read the article: High tide for the Reagan revolution?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Deregulation hasn't failed as an ideology... at the heart of it is the belief that those who fail must fail. This isn't a desire to see Bear Stearns "get theirs" out of some sort of vindictiveness, it's an essential tenant of the ideology. But since we've declared that none shall fail, deregulation can therefore not work. The essential liberty is the freedom to perish. Take that away, and you've lost all liberties.
Mr. Leonard, you've fallen into the trap that Bush has been using to ensnare the U.S. for eight years. You want to trade away essential liberty for a little security. That's what happens every time we attempt to restrain failure, loss and self destruction through legislation.
-
Um?
[Read the article: The crash in Republican economics ]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]We'll accept the premise that greed will not self-regulate and then expect politicians to do better?
Now available: Greed... with added bureaucracy!
-
@Alkaline
[Read the article: High tide for the Reagan revolution?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]You won't find me disagreeing with the statement "We let the banks get too big." Of course, I have to turn and point a finger at the Federal Reserve for that travesty as well.
In a truly unregulated economy, banks fail. Should a bank lend more than it can supply capital to cover, runs happen and it goes under. But lending money that does not in fact exist has been enshrined in U.S. law for decades. Why? Because easy credit is politically expedient and an excellent tool for wealth redistribution.
It is not, however, sustainable. We're looking at that unsustainability (unsustainableness?) in the face.
Want a sustainable system? Let banks fail, or make sure that they lend their own money, not swap debts with borrowers. What you won't have in that system is cheap and easy growth. What you also won't have is crash-and-burn economies.
-
Nothing too far to the right?
[Read the article: The ongoing exclusion of war opponents from the Iraq debate]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Glenn, I'd disagree with your statement that there is no "outer boundary" on the right. See Ron Paul: principled libertarianism based on a whole-hearted commitment to private property rights and constitutional authority tends to be too far to the right... although it is often called "so far to the right that it meets the extreme left," because it has to sit out with the other Politically Incorrect Unmentionables. So it's perceived as "left" just because our current political discourse seems to equate "not what I agree with" and "left." But technically it's substantially more right-wing than the current administration, which is not averse to appeasing the populace with gifts of welfare and "tax rebates."
-
It's probably already been brought up, but...
[Read the article: Network news anchors praise the job they did in the run-up to the war]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Does anyone else here remember Woodward and Bernstein? Isn't that what journalists should be aspiring to?
I guess that breed does still exist, but the major news outlets have let them all go. So perhaps I should reserve my disdain for the corporate heads instead of their televised lackeys.
-
We could lose a city!
[Read the article: Newt Gingrich, supreme fear-monger]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]...unless we get those nukes outta Cuba! We oughtta nuke Russia before they can nuke us! And, while we're at it, I have in my hands a list of confirmed Communist sympathizers... anyway, where was I? Oh yes, the Spanish. We must fight the Spanish menace, before we lose a ship! Give me a gulf of Tonkin resolution and we'll fight the encroaching Mexican menace and maybe grab some decent land from the heathen Injuns!
"War is God's way of teaching Americans geography." - Ambrose Bierce.
That may well be, but it sure makes our history confusing. And... repetitive...
-
What's this? What's this? It sounds deranged!
[Read the article: The right's game-playing with "dual loyalty" and "anti-Semitism" accusations]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"the situation is dangerous enough... that free and open debate about that topic is critical"
Glenn, Glenn, Glenn! Haven't you been listening? Don't you KNOW that the more dangerous a situation, the LESS free and open debate can be allowed? It's only logical! How else could a world WORK?
-
A viewpoint to be considered.
[Read the article: The right's game-playing with "dual loyalty" and "anti-Semitism" accusations]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]One thing I'd like to add to this discussion is that it isn't the Jewish population here in America that the right is pandering to in these discussions... it's the dispensational evangelicals, who believe that a) it's part of God's great plan for history that Israel be the dominant nation in the middle-east, and b) that America needs to do God's work for him. Dispensational evangelicals tend to swing right, but they can be disheartened by the lack of progress in the pro-life movement (they don't like the success that educational as opposed to legislative means to reduce abortion have been seeing, since dispensationalists are activist by nature). Taking a hard-line pro-Israel stance is a fairly easy way to drive them to the polling booth, and nobody can raise campaign contributions like a church, neither.
What I'm trying to say is, the right isn't trying to sell this to the Jews... it's trying to sell it to people who actually believe all the Jews are hellbound, and may in fact be quite anti-semitic, but are nevertheless trying to finish some Revelation-driven multinational ritual to force the return of Christ to earth. They get to bludgeon opponents with the anti-semitic hammer too, should they ever disagree, but this is just a nice bonus.