The Jan. 12 edition of the RDR had a letter, “Wealth inequality …” The writer insists the recent tax cuts will be detrimental to the country.
I have asked that writer to give sources for his statements, and he replied, “… I see no reason to give sources for any data, which should be common knowledge to anyone who reads a single news source.” He then tells me my sources are suspect without giving any explanation why he so believes.
The writer has previously stated, “His (Trump’s) collusion with the Russian government should qualify him for a lengthy prison sentence.” If that writer had been paying attention to the news, he would know that the Mueller Investigation has found no evidence of the alleged Russian collusion by Donald Trump.
Remember when our drone was hijacked by Iran? Then-president Obama was presented options to destroy the vehicle. He said, “We’ll ask for it back and see what happens.” Predictably, Iran kept the machine. Mr. Obama intentionally gave top-secret drone technology to Iran. What would be an appropriate penalty for such an act?
Barrack Obama increased our national debt by $7.5 trillion, more than any other president in history. It does not seem to be a problem to that writer.
The writer insisted he has no issues with the wealthy, yet he proclaims, “When the wealth becomes largely concentrated at the top, our economy collapses.” He needs to explain why he believes this to be true and what remedy he suggests. As I pointed out previously, we have always had rich and poor.
Even if, as that writer insists, (where did he get this story?), “80 percent (of the tax cuts) go to the top 1 percent,” it would be better than no tax cuts at all. A common misunderstanding of our economic system is that when wealthy people obtain money, it goes into some sort of “black hole” and is never seen again. The fact is that money goes into banks where it is loaned out, or it is invested into other enterprises that generate jobs. They spend money on goods and services, which also creates jobs.
I probably will not answer any more of this person’s letters, as it is something like arguing with a child: “Is too.”
“Is not. My sources are better than yours.” I even have to wonder if his letters are worth answering.
Russell A. Scott