Letters to the Editor
-
@KAteTex
Never fear.
Just remember: 90% of Obama supporters said they'd vote for Hillary and 75% of Hillary supporters say they'd vote for Obama.
I'm included in those numbers. I hope you are too. The boards are NOT a representation of anything, frankly.
90% and 75% - pretty damn good. Relax.
-
KIRUMBA
Imagine Senator Mc Cain as the President- now tha would be like looking at a disaster movie about America and the world at large!
Any human being who was in a prison of war camp and wants war is amazing! Not amazing in a creative way but in the way of a disaster!
He is also far too old to be the President! America needs a younger leader with innovative ideas about how to bring the country out of the economic sorrow it is now in. First they sold the *American dream* to its citizens... you can have it all! BUY BUY BUY Two working adults per family, family life all but erased in that senario. Both salaries spoken for to the penny each month and the end result is thousands of home owners have lost their homes and their dream! Children are suffering, ghettos are larger and larger and anger is rampant!
It seems to me that the first place to want to give oneself would be to their own country and make sure their own citizens have an equal opportunity for health care, schooling, affordable housing, and work to sustain their lives. Family values need a revision.
let us all be mindful and hear what is being said by the people in this campaign... let the hoopla go and LISTEN carefully-
Campaigning for war is insane-
Campaigning for dignity for all people makes a lot more sense!
Let us allot time and funds to clean up the poverty and erase the ghettos! Let us inspire people to have the hope and the belief that they can change their neighborhoods-- for the better and erase the fear that many now live in because of where they have to live! let us see that all children get an opportunity for an education and that the sick and the elderly are cared for. All the money that goes to a war could transform a country for the better-
There have been many inspirational people who over time have made many dreams come true because they believed they could! They could make a difference!
They had a dream!
in the peace,
-
Super Delegates Voting for Clinton is Poor Judgment
To those who say super delegates have every right under the rules to overrule the popular vote and go for Clinton are correct.
It won't happen for two simple reasons:
1) It would damage the party a great deal by pissing off those who could grow their base. The number of people who actually vote have gone down in the last 20 years, and Democrats have suffered most from the drop in participation (far more of the public claims to be Democrat or Democrat leaning).
2) It would damage their own reelection chances. Obama's ability to bring out Democratic voters in ALL states (all of which have districts Democrats could/must win) makes him valuable not just to people who want to grow the party, but win their own elections.
In fact, party officials -- especially those in elected office -- are pulling for Obama according to those with access to such conversations, for precisely the reasons I cite.
So yes, Clinton can win if party insiders overturn the will of the voters. That's unlikely, given that there is no polling that shows Obama is going to lose the "big states" or that either would lose the general.
And if there are any outside factors that weigh in, it's hard to see how they benefits Clinton in the eyes of the insiders. She has very high negatives. The Clintons have not made themselves popular among elected officials and party insiders (she's got high negatives there too). And she has known baggage that would give the GOP's smear machine months of attacks without ever having to use the same baggage twice. With Obama they have one dodgy house purchase and the experience argument (and they can make the experience argument until the cows come home in a Clinton-McCain matchup too).
-
Taliesan Sings "LALALALA",...offkey
According to Taliesan, the only way to balance a budget is to raise taxes.
Wrong. Demonstrably so.
There are two additional methods for balancing a budget;
1) Cut spending.
2) Increase revenues.
It is not a matter of plugging one's ears to be aware of this.
When Reagan cut taxes, the federal government saw a significant increase in revenue...which they spent like drunken sailors.
It's not a one-way street.
Maybe we should tax hos. I'd set the rate at 50%, spit-lizard's got the money.
-
NotOrbitBoy
When Reagan cut taxes - he sent America into the worst deficits it had seen since WWII. He also took America from being a net creditor to being one of the world's biggest net debtors.
Bush Snr followed Reagan's frugal philosophy with pretty much the same effect.
Bill Clinton raised taxes and America started going into surplus until Bush Jnr came along, cut taxes and produced the third worst inflation adjusted deficit in America's history in 2004.
Without even counting the Iraq war in that figure. I wonder if the same allowance of "Not counting the big expensive war" was included in the prior record years, 1943 and 1945.
And of course, rather than just making America one of the world's biggest debtors he took it the whole way and made America THE biggest net debtor.
All of this while cutting corners on your infrastructure, for example, refusing to improve the levies at New Orleans (A proposal was raised in 2001, only to have the funding already going to maintaining the levies that were there slashed) or maintaining America's roads and bridges.
Cutting spending can only go so far, and has a negative effect on the quality of government's service delivery. It is not a serious option right now.
-
NotOrbitBoy
Short of some bizarre growth in our economy (which is unlikely since we don't make anything anymore), there's no way to balance a budget without raising taxes -- or cutting spending dramatically.
The only way you could balance the budget by cutting spending is to slash defense. It sucks up close to 100 percent of the discretionary spending we actually have available to spend (about $700 billion of the $1.1 trillion discretionary budget, which will run at least a $400 billion deficit for years -- especially if you count the money it's borrowing from Social Security and Medicare, which has to be paid back -- with interest).
People say you can cut social security and medicare, but not without changing the law. Currently they are independently funded (and in much better shape than any other government programs). In order to use the money they generate for other stuff, it would take an act of congress that is politically impossible. So all the talk of "bloated entitlement spending" is really politics and little more.
I would be all for cutting defense by $400 billion and building schools. But I'd still raise taxes on the rich as even cuts that big to defense won't give us the healthcare and education that a modern nation should enjoy (such cuts would just bring us to a balanced budget with no additional money -- which gives you an idea how megalomaniacal our war spending is).