Socialist countries under defense umbrella of the US
Calling the “kettle black” about facts. CJ Stevens’ April 30, 2021 PVT letter, criticized George Cross’ facts. Omission of facts can be just as misleading as altered facts, sometimes even more so.
For example, the “successful” socialized countries mentioned in CJ’s letter have lived under the protective ‘defense’ umbrella of the U.S. for many decades (even those not in NATO). The biggest expenditure in most nations’ budgets is defense, reaching close to 50 percent. Most of those nations haven’t been paying their fair share for decades, which releases funds up to 20, 30, or 40 percent for other things.
Trump did squeeze and embarrass some of them until he left office, but we returned to the longtime ‘status quo’. The few exceptions today are nations that are now in NATO that were previously behind the Iron Curtain.
Next, CJ’s “court-packing fault assignment”. Historically, it has happened several times before, it all depends on who held the presidency and how big the party majority was in the U.S. Senate.
So much of the blame rests with our own former senator who dissolved the filibuster regarding judge approvals, which would have easily stopped that terrible “pro-lifer”. This space is too small to get into everything, but I do agree in part with CJ’s spending’ statement, at least in part.
Both parties and most politicians, in general, find it much easier to spend other people’s money for their own usually covert reasons.
The biggest difference particularly in the previous administration, was due to his tax policies, cutting regulations, etc.
For the first time in over 60 years we were energy independent, tax revenues reached record levels until the communist Chinese virus closed the economic world. The new administration may very well surpass spending in its first year, what took four years prior.
The only difference people may find is their new ‘sugar daddy’ is just giving them Monopoly money.
Reader responds to a few recent letters to the editor
Dave Thomas, first, thank you for your lifetime of service. In regard to your letter, as you know, when liberals can no longer make a cogent argument, they resort to name-calling. Don’t take it too hard, they do it to everybody.
Julia Ewell, your analysis of Marxism and socialism was excellent but I have learned that this logical, factual data falls mostly on liberals’ deaf ears. They either cannot or choose not to assimilate the data. If I could actually get through to CJ Stevens, I would point out a few facts such as these:
Nowhere in the Constitution of the United States does it state that we have a “socialist” or “democratic socialist” (whatever that is) form of government. However, the same document does spell out the detailed specifics for the governance of our “republic.” To put a fine point on it: “Article IV, Section 4. The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government…”
Ms. Stevens, it is possible to alter the USA’s form of government and I recommend that you and others who wish to alter it to a socialist (or “democratic socialist,” which sounds much nicer) regime get busy. It requires amending the Constitution. A constitutional amendment requires an approval vote from two-thirds of both branches of Congress followed by approval of three-fourths of the 50 state legislatures. This major change in our governance may require several amendments. It can be done. As we know, the Constitution has been amended 27 times over the last 200-plus years. It’s difficult so I suggest you roll up your sleeves. Good luck with that.
Meanwhile, there are those of us who will continue to push back against the socialists. We may lose the battle as the number of sheep and government-dependents grows, but we will at least put up our best fight. If I wanted to live under socialism, there are many countries to which I could relocate and, as has been suggested so many times before, you who love socialism have the same option! We who love our country, warts and all, will kick in for your one-way U-Hauls. God bless our democratic republic of the USA!
What we were may not be what are now says reader
The three paragraphs of “B.S.” submitted by Ferrell on May 19 were quite comical. That was not a rebuttal to my letter because obviously you did not read what I sent in and if you did, you just did not get it! Like someone else we know of right now!!
Where you were employed or retired from years ago has nothing to do as to what you do and are currently.
There are people who didn’t believe in God for quite some time, years ago, but do so currently and vice-versa.
Who people vote for is no one’s business but theirs. You have written many paragraphs leaning heavily toward Democrats and if you do, you lean toward socialism (which is the front door to communism) so I am not buying or drinking your Kool-aid!
By the way, great letter Stacy Riney (in the same paper).