Letters to the Editor
-
Bleck
Where exactly in our constitution does it anoint the government with the role of social transformation?
-
Why does sex matter?
I have been, and always will be, a Hillary Clinton supporter. I don't believe that I should push my beliefs on other people, I don't believe in judging a book by its cover. I do believe that there is good in people and they deserve a fair shot to show it. I think Hillary has been pre-judged by her husbands actions, and people have forgotten that she is not Bill Clinton, she is Hillary Rodham Clinton. She is educated. She is experienced. She knows how to compete in Washington, and she has brought good to the whole world. I like the idea of change, but I too can say that I'm going to change the world. It doesn't mean that I know how, or that I'm qualified to do it. Hillary is a realist. She has a plan. I believe in her. She does know how to make changes, and I don't have a doubt in my mind that she will.
So shame on people who judge her by her husband, shame on people who say she "acts like a man"- She is an educated leader. And she happens to be a woman.
-
It's About Hillary the Person Not Hillary the Woman
Thank you for putting some of the same misgivings about Hillary that I have, in print. There are several other things about her that bother me as well.
In Bernstein's biography of her, he points out that she is more conservative than she appears and actually is more in line with conservative values than Democratic values. I completely agree, she represents the Corporate machine whether it be Republican or Democratic it is the same thing. And ironically enough, I think she has the same exact tendency towards stubbornness that George W. has, and it is his stubbornness that has been one of his achilles heels.
Also, she has been in a dysfunctional relationship all her life enabling her husband's sex addiction. In some ways, she acts like she is owed the Presidency by her husband for everything she put up with her whole life.
She is an incredibly hard working, driven, committed woman towards politics but we have enough dysfunction in the White House already we don't need more of it. We already have had the Clinton era we don't need more of it, in with the new.
I think it would be great to have a woman as President but I am not going to vote for Hilary purely for that reason, it does not sway me. We need the right person, no matter what race, religion, sex, or I will say even party, since so many of the party lines cross over each other.
For me, I am leanings towards Obama, with Edwards a close second.
Hilary would be great doing so many things but NOT in the WHITE HOUSE!!!!!!!!!!
-
I could care less...
That Hillary is a woman. I could care less that she got teary-eyed about her hard road on the campaign trail. These ephemerals distract from what-- for me--are the seminal issues: Clinton's stands on Iraq, Iran and the Patriot Act, the huge contributions taken from big pharma and big insurance. These are problematic issues. Her genitalia or her self pitying emotional state aren't.
-
@ smith
we're getting off topic with all this, but i want to respond to your writing about social security. you wrote:
Social Security is not endanger. It is Medicare and Medicaid that are in danger. ... Most progressives here at Salon would certainly agree with me on that.
if they think that they are wrong. Social Security is just like the surge spin ... there is relative solvency when compared to medicare/medicaid ... but there is a long-term issue for anyone younger than 40. obama is not catering to the right ... this is pundit spin to evoke fear & confuse the issue. obama is saying this about social security to attract younger voters.
the most recent article i can quickly find on the subject is at msn money, written by Liz Pulliam Weston. she writes:
Myth No. 4: Social Security will run out of money in 2041. Social Security will still be receiving payroll taxes from workers in 2041. What may have disappeared by then are the assets in the Social Security trust fund.
Even that isn't cast in stone, however. The Congressional Budget Office in June 2006 projected that the trust fund wouldn't dry up until five years later, in 2046. The CBO used different assumptions than those used by the Social Security Administration, projecting faster growth in worker earnings, higher interest rates and lower inflation.
Here's how the Social Security Administration projects the timeline:
In 2017, Social Security will begin paying out more than it takes in. For the first time, it will have to use the interest being paid on the securities it holds in order to meet its obligations.
In 2027, Social Security would have to start redeeming the securities themselves.
By 2041, Social Security would have cashed in the last security, and the system would have enough revenue to pay out only 75% of promised benefits. That percentage would drop over time if Congress failed to act.
if social security were a private pension, the trustees of this private pension would be in jail. "borrowing against" social security's trust fund would be considered illegal in a private setting.
this is from the NATIONAL CENTER FOR POLICY ANALYSIS:
In the 2003 Trustees Report, the present value of the difference between the system’s revenues and expenditures over the next 75 years is projected to be $4.9 trillion. Including the $1.4 trillion trust fund as an offsetting asset, or dedicated funding source, lowers this unfunded obligation to $3.5 trillion. New this year is an estimate of the infinite horizon unfunded obligation. That number is a whopping $11.9 trillion without the trust fund or $10.5 with the trust fund offset.
with unfunded liability the choices are clear ... just like global warming ... fund the liability now so that the trust fund can grow; stop borrowing against it for other things like paying interest on the nat'l debt ... or address a massive problem in the future. or ... just change the benefit so that all of us who are paying for boomer retirement get less than we paid in to the plan.
addressing this longer term is not a "right wing policy" ... privatizing social security is. privitizing means dissolving the defined benefit and making it a defined contribution plan. making the pension into a 401(k).
obama is not for this. he wants the government to meet it's obligation without screwing over the younger folks. this is a very progressive, liberal attitude, and one that clinton is to the "right" of.