Posted on 09/19/2004 7:57:12 AM PDT by chasio649
Don't get me wrong. I live in the south, and I love the south. I spend my Saturday afternoons watching the Georgia Bulldogs and other southern college football teams; I enjoy true quality peaches and real grapes known as scuppernongs; I eat my fatback and grits; and the people are very nice. I simply disagree with them about politics and religion. The political beliefs of white southerners drag this country down.
It has always been this way throughout American history starting with the issue of slavery. Most northern states gave up slavery as early as 1800, but for economic reasons, southerners refused to give up on the heinous institution. Everyone knows slavery was an economic advantage for a few wealthy landowners. They used their political clout to completely control and influence society. Having slaves was a detriment to the poorer whites as well, because they could not compete with free labor. Yet, rich whites owned the newspapers. The editorial pages were filled with pictures of what would happen if slaves were freed. (Black men would go with white woman. OOOOH! How abhorrent.)
We all know what happened. The bloodiest war in American history broke out. And it was not even because the north was going to force the south to give up slavery. It was because the country elected a president--who for the first time--was going to morally condemn slavery. This was a slap in the face to the south. The south defended the institution of slavery, and the southern Baptist religion was even founded on this moral defense. There is no argument today. At least not a reasonable one. The south was wrong. And the south was wrong during the Civil Rights battle one hundred years later.
The south is still wrong. If it wasn't for white southerners, George W. Bush would have no chance of getting elected. He can rely on the south to vote for him in a block. What's wrong with Bush?
Then there is the war on terror which has been one colossal blunder after another. Let's make this clear. Mr. Bush was not the victim of bad intelligence. He deliberately mistated the intelligence that he did have--an impeachable offense. Starting a war of aggression for phony reasons is a crime against humanity.
It is evident that we have a redneck gangster as president. Unfortunately, white southerners by and large support him even though his policies such as his tax cuts for the rich hurt working class southern whites. Their blind loyalty brings this country down.
About the author Mark Gelbart: I've written a novel entitled Talk Radio. I'm still looking for a publisher.
Email: agelbart@aol.com
I didn't relize your were new here.
Welcome, would like some tea?
Crank theory on tax cuts
 |
|
Tools  Subscribe to this paper Larger / Smaller Text
|
I live in Augusta, Ga., and the Augusta Chronicle recently ran one of your editorials entitled "Tax Cuts Warranted." In your editorial, you claimed that under Reagan, tax cuts boosted tax revenues. This is completely false. Here are the statistics from the U.S. Office of Management and Budget's annual historical tables (1987):
Year Tax Collections in Constant (adjusted for inflation) 1987 dollars
1981 $766.6 billion
1982 $738.2 billion Reagan's tax cuts go in effect here.
1983 $684.3 billion Revenue from corporate income tax fell so drastically that Reagan agreed to a corporate
tax hike here. Remember his "revenue enhancement" as a euphemism for a tax increase?
1984 $730.4 billion
1985 $776.1 billion
It took five years for the tax collections to equal what they were before Reagan cut taxes, and this is when the tax revenue base is naturally increasing with the increase in the GDP which occurs every year, unless there is a recession. Economists are in near unanimous agreement that supply-side theory has been proven false. In fact, there is not a single supply-side wing in any college economics department in the United States.
It's a crank theory, popular with politicians who think they can promise us the moon and the stars.
Mark Gelbart,
Augusta, Ga.
Whoo-Whee, Deputy Dawg!
We need a Zell ZOTListen up, Mark Gelbart. You've just been Zell ZOTTED!
Nothing like enjoying the southern morning on your front porch! I do resent you didn't get my written permission before taking my photo. I hate having my photo taken without a chance to comb my hair first.
While slavery may have been the main, but not the only, underlying cause of the war, the North's objective for the first couple of years was preservation of the Union, not ending slavery. Here is a resolution of the US House of Representatives to that effect from July 22, 1861:
Resolved by the House of Representatives of the Congress of the United States, That the present deplorable civil war has been forced upon the country by the disunionists of the Southern States now in revolt against the constitutional Government, and in arms around the capitol; that in this national emergency, Congress, banishing all feelings of mere passion or resentment, will recollect only its duty to the whole country; that this war is not waged upon our part in any spirit of oppression, nor for any purpose of conquest or subjugation, nor purpose of overthrowing or interfering with the rights or established institutions of those States; but to defend and maintain the supremacy of the Constitution, and to preserve the Union, with all the dignity, equality, and rights of the several States, unimpaired; and that as soon as these objects are accomplished the war ought to cease.
The Senate passed a resolution with substantially the same wording on July 25, 1861.
Really??? I'm surprised. Usually publishers JUMP at this kind of revisionist "history" agenda-dumping.
The writer is correct; I hate the white, southern politicians too. Let’s talk about the last two in office that fit that description. He lied to the American people, lied under oath, was drunk and fell hurting his knee while military pilots were in a holding pattern waiting for his order to attack or abort (never received the order because he was too drunk to give it (see Dereliction of Duty: The Eyewitness Account of How Bill Clinton Endangered America's Long-Term National Security by Robert Patterson)).
Once he stood in the hanger of 13 dead American Air force personnel and promised revenge to their death, but never even made a single threat to the known perpetrators of the attack. Then skipping ahead until he finally left office, he backed up a van and looted the treasures of the Whitehouse from the American people(see Rewriting History by Dick Morris).
That’s me just warming up, and not even talking about his wife.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
