After reading about elitist deficit hawks in your last issue (cover story, April 6), I was relieved that very little was said on two subjects: ending all military adventurism worldwide, and making the wealthy and their corporations pay their fair share of taxes; and I was happy that Paul Krugman’s ideas were given only one paragraph. After all, what’s a Nobel Prize worth?
Also, I was pleased to read of some of your experts’ approval of the Ryan plan for two reasons: It shows proper contempt for the poor (formerly quaintly called “the middle class”) and the old among us; and its math isn’t quite as fuzzy as many critics say. Not quite.
Still, I suppose that very few — almost none of us conceivably belonging to the “welfare class” — need concern ourselves with such socially unattractive matters. Now hold my mint julep, will you, while I bust another union and tell the lesser among us to tighten their belts. After all, they shouldn’t live forever.
After reading about elitist deficit hawks in your last issue (cover story, April 6), I was relieved that very little was said on two subjects: ending all military adventurism worldwide, and making the wealthy and their corporations pay their fair share of taxes; and I was happy that Paul Krugman’s ideas were given only one paragraph. After all, what’s a Nobel Prize worth?
Also, I was pleased to read of some of your experts’ approval of the Ryan plan for two reasons: It shows proper contempt for the poor (formerly quaintly called “the middle class”) and the old among us; and its math isn’t quite as fuzzy as many critics say. Not quite.
Still, I suppose that very few — almost none of us conceivably belonging to the “welfare class” — need concern ourselves with such socially unattractive matters. Now hold my mint julep, will you, while I bust another union and tell the lesser among us to tighten their belts. After all, they shouldn’t live forever.