The American Spectator

Reader Mail

Red and Yellow, Black and Blue

3.24.08 @ 12:01AM

(Page 6 of 6)

Heard this proposal before. It is a simple, effective and brilliant idea for solving our economic problems --which is why Congress, and most specifically Democrats, will never let it happen. For Congress in general, any diminution of power is anathema -- period. For Democrats in particular, any "favors" bestowed on "evil" corporations is a non-starter for the party of class warfare and socialist utopian
ambitions.

Common sense? DOA in Washington, D.C.
-- Arnold Ahlert
Boca Raton, Florida

WADE IN THE WATER
Re: Christopher Preble & Jeremy Lott's Bridges over Troubled Water:

There are aspects of the Preble/Lott argument I agree with. If the residents of Ketchikan and Gravina Island need a bridge "float" a bond and build it like thousands of municipalities do all the time. It isn't the responsibility of the feds. But their argument is "what price the war?" I ask: "What is the net cost of the war and what is the price tag of freedom?" $10B a month is three-tenths of a percent of our gargantuan 3 Trillion dollar budget but of the $10B how much would be spent on having these troops and their equipment on "standby"? Or do we take the Clintonian "What me worry?" approach and just send everyone home? 9/11 cost the American economy over $250 billion in hard costs alone, if you factor losses to the national and global economies the cost of this war doesn't seem to be such an exorbitant expense.
-- Tim Reed
Highlands Ranch, Colorado

"War costs money too. Round the bill for the bridges to nowhere that so incensed McCain up to $500 million. Our occupation of Iraq, which often seems to be getting nowhere, is costing north of $10 billion /a month."

Our occupation may be "getting nowhere," but this need not be the case.

Obama and Clinton are anxious to retreat. At least John McCain understands our responsibilities -- "if you break it, you bought it," or some such sentiment.

Well, if we bought it because we broke it, we possess one of the largest proven oil reserves on earth. This mess didn't start out as "blood for oil," but I'm optimistic that we are not too late. Maybe McCain is clever enough to understand our fortuitous position. Obama and Hillary clearly are not.

I'd like to see McCain campaign on one of these positions: 1. we, the United States, broke it, we bought it, and we claim it, or 2. being magnanimous in victory, we do not claim Iraqi oil, but we will take our rightful seat as a full member of OPEC.

If President McCain's "Oil Minister" can't convince our fellow OPEC members to dramatically increase production, we will unilaterally, and massively, increase /our/ production in /our/ Iraqi oil fields. With oil at $30 per barrel, and our economy humming, maybe President McCain would then have more patience with the Congressional porkers.
-- Dan Martin
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

The reason that 42 percent of anti-war voters voted for McCain is more likely to be that they were independents and Democrats trying to pick the Republican candidate. These same voters, I would suspect, would not be deficit hawks or against earmarks.
-- Mark Nelson

GORE OR GOLDBERG?
Re: Nathan Maskiell's letter (under "Rube Goldberg") in Reader Mail's Palestinian Problems:

It's clear from his letter that Nathan Maskiell can't read. Jonah Goldberg's new book factually documents exactly why Hitler and Mussolini were 100 percent leftist. For him to call them Right-Wing proves he didn't bother to read the book. I'm sure he didn't have the time since he's probably on his one billionth
watching of Al Gore's global warming drivel.
-- Greg Barnard
Franklin, Tennessee

Letter to the Editor

topics:
Taxes, Education, Trade, John McCain, Bill Clinton, Business, Earmarks, Global Warming, Law, Supreme Court, Military, Iraq, Russia, NATO, Africa, Oil