Letters to the Editor
New Deal Democrat
Published Letters: 186 Editor's Choice: 43
-
Huckabee is just as bad as Romney
[Read the article: Worthless chatter]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Glenn's analysis of the the faultlines in the Republican Party notwithstanding, I think those on the left side of the spectrum who are seeing some sort of "evangelical progressivism" in Huckabee are seriously deluding themselves.
He may indeed be more Main Street than Wall Street, but he still feels entitled to meddle in the private lives of people he considers immoral. His comments about quarantining people with HIV, and about how gays should be celibate, can only be alarming to people who are genuinely concerned about civil liberties. I don't take any more comfort in a cornpone fascist than in a pampered one like Romney. Moreover, I'll take a corporate shill over a thin-skinned, ethics-challenged, self-righteous zealot who thinks it's his God-given right to enforce a certain kind of religious morality.
-
Which of the oh-so-wonderful "leading Democrats" stands by the Constitution?
[Read the article: The Manchester of the South?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]For those of you who are so dismissive of Ron Paul, can you please answer the question? And another - what well-known liberal do you know of who has gone on national TV and made the bold, and true, assertion that the rollback we've seen in civil liberties since 9/11 amounts to creeping fascism?
Neither Clinton nor Obama cared to join Chris Dodd last month in his threatened filibuster against telecom immunity and warrantless wiretapping. I hear nothing from the Edwards camp about any of these issues.
I tend to agree that Paul's take on the IRS and the gold standard are a bit loony. Still, aren't we living in Bizarro world when a Republican takes more "liberal" stances on civil liberties than Democrats? Perhaps my fellow Democrats who love to make fun of Paul should focus that energy on holding their own candidates' feet to the fire.
-
What about inflation?
[Read the article: What Hillary would do tomorrow, if she could]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]My company's economist, who has a high degree of accuracy, believes that there's just as much risk on the inflation side as there is of a recession - probably more.
I'm not convinced that either Andrew or Salon readers understand that "fiscal stimulus" is inherently inflationary, which is all fine and good if the problem is that your economy is truly in recession. If not, it's a risky maneuver that might backfire. It's been so long since we had high inflation that I think many people have forgotten just how terrible it is.
I'm against any government intervention to bail out homeowners who have take on too much debt. At this point, they're an exceedingly small percentage of homeowners overall, and I think all we're doing is rewarding bad decisions and greed on the part of home buyers. The last thing people need in this country is an excuse to be more financially irresponsible.
-
@walter_map
[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, but I'll try.
- What are the "distortions" in the economy that you claim are some sort of substitute for inflation? Maybe you have a point here; I don't know. The U.S. debt is actually not a problem currently when measured as a percentage of GDP, which is the only meaningful metric. That's not to say we should continue our profligate, imperial ways (Iraq, for starters), or that it might not be a problem down the road, but your dire portrait of it would be unrecognizable to any reputable economist.
- Quoting Woodrow Wilson on good government is like quoting Richard Nixon on good ethics. Wilson's government was one of the more repressive the U.S. has ever seen, especially in regards to civil liberties during the First World War. His policing of "sedition" was seditious alright - to the U.S. Constitution. His ego-driven, messianic vision of himself played no small role in the failure of the League of Nations and the brutal treatment of Germany at the hands of England and France, and the subsequent descent into chaos in Europe in the 1920s and '30s. About the only good thing the man ever did was create the Federal Reserve (apologies to Ron Paul fans).
- Your assumption that everyone who has a mortgage they can't pay was cheated is naive in the extreme. Many of the so-called "average people" who took out these absurd loans were living in a fantasyland of greed and self-deception. Yes, they were aided and abetted in hurting themselves by a lot of people making money off the deal, but that's just called the real world. There's no substitute for common sense and basic due diligence; we all have a responsibility to resist the siren songs of marketers. If it sounds too good to be true, guess what? It probably is.
- Not that it's any of your business, but I am, in fact, a Democrat. When you essentially claim that, just because I don't engage in your ridiculous victim-mongering, that I'm not "real," you're only fulfilling the worst right-wing stereotypes of Democrats as lacking any powers of critical discernment whatsoever. Is the repeal of common sense and personal responsibility a plank in the party platform? I didn't get the memo.
-
What argument fails, start name-calling
[Read the article: What Hillary would do tomorrow, if she could]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]walter_map: In other words, wingnut, you're weaseling.
You're astounding us all with your powers of reason.
-
The flip side of the coin
[Read the article: Barney Frank on the regulation warpath]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]There are good arguments to be made that the mortgage industry needs tighter regulation - at a minimum, more disclosure requirements.
But be prepared for the chorus of howls that will occur should more stringent regulation come to pass. There will be plenty of people who simply won't qualify for a more traditional loan because of bad credit, insufficient income, etc. Then there will be a lot of handwringing about home ownership is outside the reach of many, and how unfair that is.
Those of you arguing for more regulation can't have it both ways. More regulation will likely equal more conservative lending, meaning that many people with less than stellar financial histories will be shut out. That won't sit well given that Americans seem to think they have some sort of right not just to be home owners, but to own as big a house as they want.