Readers write about how the US should respond to Pakistani terrorist attacks in India, whether a stimulus package for the US economy should include more spending, the unique voice of columnist Mel Maddocks, and the end of junk mail.
Regarding the Dec. 1 editorial, "Best way to react to India's '9/11'": I am surprised by your editorial asking for restraint from India in the wake of the terror attacks. I understand the American fear that military attempts by India to destroy terrorist camps in Pakistan would jeopardize US attempts to fight the Taliban along the Afghan border. However, I cannot understand asking a nation that has lost more than 7,000 citizens to terrorist attacks in the past four years to show "restraint." Pakistan has not only refrained from taking action against terrorists operating against India from its soil, but also actively supported these terrorist groups. America can be a true leader in the war on terror by joining India's efforts to uproot the terrorist infrastructure in Pakistan.
Obama stimulus can't raise US deficit
In regard to the Nov. 26 article, "In switch, Obama emphasizes belt-tightening": President-elect Obama's current plans to contain spending while simultaneously spending on a stimulus package concern me. Doing so will push the federal deficit to new heights.
Mr. Obama's economic advisers argue that a stimulus plan will increase the deficit simply because it must be increased in a bad economic climate. They argue that failing to act will push America into a depression because government intervention is needed to promote economic stability and job creation, a lesson learned from the Great Depression. But this is 2008, and the Depression-era government did not face a budget that spends almost as much on debt repayments as it does on the Defense Department.