By allowing ads to appear on this site, you support the local businesses who, in turn, support great journalism.
Your Views: Government control of finances leads us closer to Stalinism
Placeholder Image
Letters policy
Send e-mail to (no attached files, please, which can contain viruses); fax to 770-532-0457; or mail to The Times, P.O. Box 838, Gainesville, GA 30503. Include full name, hometown and phone number for confirmation. They should be limited to one topic on issues of public interest and may be edited for content and length. Letters forwarded from other sources or those involving personal, business or legal disputes, poetry, expressions of faith or memorial tributes may be rejected. You may be limited to one letter per month, two on a single topic. Submitted items may be published in print, electronic or other forms. Letters, columns and cartoons express the opinions of the authors and not of The Times editorial board.

American history has been written to reflect the wonders of the Franklin D. Roosevelt era, but few have looked at how he really reflected Josef Stalin's philosophies. For any culture to be changed, there must be a chaotic diversion to spark the need for change so that the masses will be receptive.

Roosevelt was a four-term president until he died. He and his legislative bodies controlled the markets and money to institute social programs by redistribution of wealth. They made the people dependent on the help of government. They nationalized many programs and grew the government like never before. History has been very kind to the Roosevelt era.

Since 2008, we have an economic dilemma that had been legislated for two years by a majority of Democrats in the Senate and Congress while a Republican president was busy addressing a war on foreign soil. By election time, in October 2008, it was clear the problems of the economy had surpassed the ability to sustain without U.S. government intervention. Unprecedented actions were taken and the election was decided where Democrats have taken control of the presidency and Congress.

The lame-duck president used a minimal amount of a stimulus fund so that the incoming party would have available revenue to stabilize the economy. The elected party took control and the economy has worsened with job losses, foreclosures and business failures, with banks not funding many of its customers. The Democrats to date continue to blame the past Republican administration for the problems that they have legislated and regulated for the past 2½ years.

The economic dilemma creates the chaotic diversion for change. The U.S. government now has funded trillions of dollars to financial institutes and large corporate entities for which they now own or technically nationalized. New regulations and social programs are being implemented while more families are being financially destroyed by what banks say are caused by federal regulators' requirements.

Federal legislators say they are trying to help our economy, but unlike any other economic downturn, they will not let banks work out financially sound arrangements with their established customers and fund them to protect community market values. That will prevent their assets and collateral from being redistributed for pennies on the dollars.

Those who are able to operate will be taxed at a much higher percentage, with more insidious regulations, and forced to compete with diminished product values from financial institution short sales. This practice will destroy much of capitalism and create many personal failures, increasing a government dependent society. This debacle will weaken the strength of our people and our nation for years to come if we cannot stop the changes and practices being implemented.

Stalin nationalized businesses and established many social programs to control the people. He had the support of his people because the conditions allowed it, but who created the conditions? Was it a political base who wanted change?

David A. Derusha

Language barrier shouldn't leave English speakers out
While shopping at a local thrift store, I was told the store had closed for the day. When I apologized and said that I didn't know, I was told that they had been announcing it. I said that I had heard something in Spanish but that I don't speak Spanish. I also stated that this is the United States and that English is our language.

I was promptly told that Spanish is the second language of the United States. I then said that I don't speak Spanish and that they need to make their announcements in English also.

I'm not a prejudice person but after the rudeness of this employee, I wanted to say "just go back to Mexico." We accommodate them; why can they not accommodate us?

My children have complained over the years about having to take Spanish and I have always encouraged them to. They have also said the Spanish kids who already speak English fluently have to take English. Why don't we expect them to take Chinese or French if they already know English?

I feel that the United States accommodates every nationality, and maybe if they want to live and work here, they shouldn't accommodate them. Maybe all the stores, churches and employers should only converse in English, which is the language of the United States of America, not the United States of Mexico.

Jane Thayer

Regional events