Where's the Democrats' bipartisanship?
In the Mantle Piece titled "Let's Get to Work Saving the Nation" in the March 4 edition of the Fort MIll Times John Mantle makes some ridiculous comments that I'm really tired of hearing both in the media and from friends and coworkers.
The first is his ridiculous assertion that we Republicans should admit we lost, suck it up and show some bipartisanship. I'm sorry, but where was the bipartisanship for the past eight years under President Bush? Does Mantle really believe that Democrats, after losing two elections in a row, sat back and said, "well, we lost, now let's do all we can to back our president."
Never miss a local story.
But now, we're supposed to do that for the new president. Well no, I'm not going to. I fundamentally disagree with about 95 percent of President Obama's policies and I'm not going to just sit back and watch our country fall apart.
Which brings me to my second point: Isn't the point of a democracy to have representation and for citizens to voice our opinion and demand that representatives actually represent their constituents' views? It is not only our right, but it is our responsibility. I am glad that my Republican senators and governor are acting dependably and voting against the socialist agendas of the new administration and I will continue to be a part of our democratic nation.
Lastly, Mantle's assertion that FDR's policies after the depression were the best answer has been studied by numerous economists and found to have prolonged the Great Depression by at least seven years. In one study by two economists, it reads, "We found that a relapse (into a depression) isn't likely unless lawmakers gum up a recovery with ill-conceived stimulus policies."
That was written in August of 2004, and now look what the government is doing. I assume that they didn't have a crystal ball, but I do know that I for one am very scared.
Mantle takes play from Dem's book
As I read the editorial page of the March 4 edition, I can't help but see a real paradox. In the middle of the page, I read the original, well articulated thoughts of an eighth grader, Emily Hessler. One column to the left (naturally) I see standard talking points spoon-fed right from the Democrats' play book and spit out venomously by the mean spirited John Mantle.
I respect his First Amendment right to say what he wants, but I truly wish he would disappear from the pages of the Times forever, much like the notions in this country that you work for what you have, and that you are fully responsible for your decisions and actions.
Mantle's a name-caller
I am surprised that you would actually publish John Mantle's column. He has nothing better to say than call people names and try to belittle them. This is not productive nor is it civil.
He is a vile little man that has no respect for other people's opinions. Only through mutual respect will this country survive. People like Mantle work against that principle and do more harm than good for our society.
Why not mention Frank, or his buddy Dodd?
I just had to respond to John Mantle's column in last week's paper about the Republicans whining about the Democrats in charge of everything.
I have been in Fort Mill about five years and all I have seen is whining and criticizing of the Bush administration about anything that happened. It seems strange that Mantle conveniently omitted in his last column what was the main cause of the financial mess the country is in now.
He makes no mention of his liberal buddies Barney Frank and Chris Dodd putting pressure on the banks and Fannie May and Freddie Mac to give out loans to people who otherwise could not afford them. Their idea was everyone should be a homeowner whether they could afford them or not. Then to make things worse they were in charge of fixing the problem they created.
The Democrats want the government to control everything. You see how well that is working out with other socialist countries.
Obama wants to punish the people who have success and reward the people who have no success whether through their fault or not. Most people figure the government will provide for them without working for it.
Prestmont Court Fort Mill
Mantle's premise is false
It was either a misprint or an error by John Mantle when he said that the Keynesian approach used by FDR reduced unemployment to the 2 percent level. Actually, the unemployment rate was 14.6 percent in 1940 and only World War II reduced it by removing able-bodied men from the workforce and by creating new demands for war materiel.
The unemployment bottomed out at 2.9 percent, eight years after the end of the war in 1953.
While a war does reduce unemployment numbers, the loss of life and the destruction of resources is a terrible drain on a country and can not be a solution. Even if it were, we don't have today a formidable opponent such as we had in Germany and Japan. The Muslims can not get together and kill each other off more often than they kill the infidels. Russia is a basket case with a rapidly declining population and China is still technologically too backward to fight a modern war.
There is a danger of a Russian-Chinese alliance against the West, but at this point it is remote. So we are left either with the hope that the Keynesian approach will produce different result this time, or we can let market forces shake out those who didn't play by the rules.