To The Editor:

Here come the socialists. They want your money. They want your freedom. They want your home. They want your country. They probably want your Bibles, too. Who are these villains so we can crush this evil force? But Newsweek magazine says, “We are all socialists.” Was Pogo right when he said, “We have met the enemy and he is us.’?

Of course he was. The 70-year-old man using Medicare Part D to pay for his drugs is a socialist. The 85-year-old widow in a nursing home whose bill is being paid for by Medicaid is a socialist. The college student getting a government Pell Grant is a socialist. The small businessman getting a Small Business Administration loan is a socialist. The farmer getting a government support payment on his farm production is a socialist. The unemployed worker who was fired from his job and is getting extended benefits is a socialist. The wounded veteran receiving disability benefits is a socialist. The family that has lost employment and is now on the food stamp program is socialist. 

And what about AIG, Bank of America, GM, Chrysler and all the other corporations? Surely all those corporate executives who so successfully ran these companies and hobnobbed with their Republican big-wig politician friends are now socialists since they have been bailed out by the federal government.  

Oh, let’s not forget about all the socialist doctors who see Medicare and Medicaid patients. Then there are all these cities and towns that get federal grants for sewer and street improvements, low-income housing and law enforcement and fire fighting equipment. What would they have done without their socialist government leaders.

Too, what about all these dumb homeowners who have “toxic assets”? ( I love it when government expands my vocabulary with such words as transparency, vetting and toxic assets. I never realized how limited my vocabulary was.) What do we do about these characters? Well since most of them would reject being called socialists, then the hell with them. Foreclose, foreclose, foreclose. Serves them right.

But come to think of it, I believe the only person who is not a socialist is (Messenger Special Features Editor) Glenda Caudle. Maybe someone needs to whisper in her ear. A good person like her needs to get on the gravy train. President Obama has her stimulus check waiting.

Richard Chesteen

Union City

Better stimulus 

plan outlined

To The Editor:

An open letter to President Obama:

I’ve been thinking ... Here’s a suggestion for the economy problems facing our nation. Before I continue, let me explain. I have absolutely no qualifications or expertise in finance, politics or conglomerate corporation management. But last night this plan came to my mind after again watching the media coverage of our country’s dysfunctional financial status and watching as more companies and businesses were added to the defunct list. You and your esteemed advisors will need to work out the fine details but here goes.

Let’s say, Mr. President, you have earmarked $10 trillion, give or take a few trillion, as bailout/stimulus money for banks, car companies, mortgage institutions, etc. (It seems these institutions have had their chance, chances and more chances to pass the money management course and still have morbidly failed). Here’s what I’ve done. I’ve divided the U.S. population by one-third and came up with a number of about 100 million people. Let’s say in the U.S. we have about this many adults working and making under $1 million. (Like I said, I’m no mathematician, statistician or politician). When you divided  $10 trillion by 100 million adults, you get $100,000. What if you gave $100,000 to every adult making under $1 million? Do this instead of giving the money to bailout the aforementioned financially troubled or defunct institutions. (I’m not talking tax breaks here. I’m saying write each of the 100 million a check for $100,000). Wouldn’t this stimulate the economy? Look at it this way, 50 percent or so of the recipients would probably buy a new car, thus stimulating the car industry and all industries connected with the production of automobiles. Probably 50 percent of the recipients would pay off their mortgages or be able to continue their mortgage payments, and some might make a substantial down payment on a new home, thus stimulating the mortgage companies, the construction industry, banks, and companies manufacturing whatever it takes to construct and furnish a new home. Fifty percent might just take a trip to Disney World, thus helping the tourist industry as well as, airplane companies, and the clothing manufacturers in that a vacation always requires a new swim suit, etc. One hundred percent would go to Wal-Mart and buy “something,” thus helping the biggest retailer in the U.S. (I heard last night, Disney World and Walmart are hurting and cutting back in various ways). For example, your plan designates huge amounts of money be given to the car companies. This seems somewhat ironic in that with the status of many families personal economy they do not have the money needed to buy a new car. Thus, with your economic stimulus plan, I picture car lots full of lovely new cars with no one being able to purchase them.

For me personally, I’m somewhat conservative. Parked in my garage are two older model vehicles and my husband and I have lived in the same home for almost 20 years. I spend most of my salary on utilities, groceries, gasoline, insurance, church contributions, taxes and shoes. I consider luxury spending to be when my family takes a vacation or two each year. As you can see, if you consider my financial advice and give me $100,000, I probably wouldn’t stimulate the economy very much. But a large percent of the 1,000,000 people, after receiving $100,000, will put this money back into the economy and some might even save or invest — thus, a stimulated economy. 

Just run this by your experts and see, if with a little tweaking, this just might be as sound a theory as some other proposals I’ve been hearing. One added bonus for you: I don’t think I have to tell you, if you promote the stimulus policy I have outlined, who will be elected president by popular vote in 2012. (Looks like a win-win situation to me). If you decide to use any part of my proposal and want to run with it, it’s fine with me if you sign your name to it. I really do not need or want any notoriety.

Now about our nation’s energy crisis ... I’ve been thinking ...

Jane Bailey

South Fulton

Published in The Messenger 3.11.09