From a White House the staff described as “engulfed in turmoil,” the president decrees tariffs to protect U.S. industries from unfair trade, although the same industries he says he’s protecting, immediately say it will cost them jobs and profits, and begin a trade war. If he had paid attention in his U.S. history class in high school, he would know that the stock market crash in October 1929 didn’t actually begin the Great Depression. In fact, the market had made a good recovery by April of 1930.
However, we did two things: First, we stopped propping up U.S. industry, in the same way some wanted to stop “bailing out” U.S. companies (like GM, which the government made millions of dollars in profit by “bailing out”), which we resisted during the last recession, and, second, we applied tariffs to protect U.S. industries.
These two actions, especially the tariffs, were the true triggers of the Great Depression. Given how much more dependent we are on international trade, and the fact that almost all products now contain materials, sub-assemblies and require labor from more than one country, tariffs are pretty much guaranteed to do major damage to our economy, to hurt all our industries including steel and aluminum (which those industries are trying to get the president to understand), and undo everything the president has (or hopes he has) accomplished economically up to now.
History that some won’t speak about truthfully
I see in an article in The Telegraph that one of TV’s best bets for the week of March 4 is the first installment of a four part History Channel documentary titled “The Men Who Built America.” Note that the title says “men.” Upon closer examination, the article gives examples of four frontiersmen who helped make America great. Y’all watch out now. As soon as the show airs (or maybe even before), persons or groups of the left-wing political correctness persuasion will be all over the media denouncing the History Channel for airing such a racist, bigoted show. Never mind that the folks who the show features were actually men and, even worse, white men.
Two things catching the eye
Two things in the Feb. 28 Telegraph. “Hollywood film industry insider threatens Georgia if anti-LGBTQ bill passes”: Please Georgia do not become another Tinseltown showtime state allowing our state decisions to be threaten by money thrown at us by representatives of Hollywood.
“Leaders want progress in federal support for HBCUs”: Here we go again governing for race.
I am sure leaders want progress in federal support for all colleges. Other than the restoration of Pell Grants, that are not repaid, established for low-middle income students, recently the White House worked with congressional lawmakers to forgive millions of dollars borrowed from the federal government to rebuild Historically Black Colleges and Universities.
Faye W. Tanner,
Increasing the danger
To the sergeant who took exception to my article: I have to wonder how many young men he tagged and bagged? We left Vietnam with North Vietnam troops pouring into to the South. We failed. Period! As to fighting in the Middle East, why do you think those few terrorists flew into our Twin Towers? We have them currently looking at more soft targets. Maybe you should write all of those families that lost love ones in those towers. America is in grave danger of being hit by terrorist the longer we stay in the Middle East.
Hands off the letters
May I echo Jerry Norris’ letter of Feb. 25, protesting the recent cutback in the number of days Letters to the Editor appears. The letters are the best thing about The Telegraph, and as Norris intimated, in cutting them back and replacing them with canned wire copy, the newspaper seems to be exercising some weird suicidal impulse. Allowing reruns of 30-year-old episodes of “Doonesbury” to encroach into the letters’ space was bad enough, but eliminating them entirely is, obviously, immeasurably worse.
The Telegraph’s Letters to the Editor are the closest thing Middle Georgia has to a community living room, a place where people can gather to hear the opinions of their neighbors and, if they desire, express their own — a process from which, just possibly, we might all approach a little bit closer to the truth.
Although it might seem highfalutin’ to say so, given the incoherence, inarticulateness, irrationality and/or mean-spiritedness of too many of the letters, there is something sacred about this. We live in a democracy among whose founding principles is that “all are created equal,” where the highest and the lowest each get one vote, and there is a marvelous equality about the Letters to the Editor, where the highest and the lowest, assuming that the editors are amenable, are equally free to speak and be heard. No degree, no title, no position, no minimum income and no minimum education, again assuming that the editors are amenable, is required in order to participate. Surely The Telegraph editors must be able to understand that this is a pure expression of the free speech that is enshrined in the U.S. Constitution and is the foundational principle of American journalism.