Las Vegas Sun

October 23, 2014

Currently: 63° — Complete forecast | Log in | Create an account

Letter to the editor:

Welfare recipients shouldn’t vote

Another view?

View more of the Las Vegas Sun's opinion section:

Editorials - the Sun's viewpoint.

Columnists - local and syndicated writers.

Letters to the editor - readers' views.

Have your own opinion? Write a letter to the editor.

In reading the article about public assistance agencies ramping up efforts to register people to vote, I’m reminded that when I registered to vote at 18 years old (43 years ago), I went looking for the registrar’s office.

I made a few phone calls, found out where the office was and took it upon myself to get registered.

I wanted to vote and be part of this representative republic. If people don’t have enough interest or ambition to get themselves registered to vote, I don’t think we should be chasing after them, “begging” them to vote. My guess is they will not be very informed voters. Those kinds of voters are likely to vote for candidates based on looks or feelings and not on the issues.

In my opinion, people on public assistance should not be allowed to vote as long as they are receiving it. At the point they apply and are qualified for welfare, I believe they should be required to sign away their voting rights until they no longer require assistance. At that point, their voting rights would be reinstated.

This seems to me neither heartless nor unfair but completely just.

We all know that those on public assistance would be more inclined to vote for those candidates that promise the most. It’s just our human nature.

The system is ripe for corruption and fraud. I am not opposed to public assistance in certain cases, but we have to admit the abuses of the system are everywhere.

This seems like a simple, logical fix, but that’s just me.

Join the Discussion:

Check this out for a full explanation of our conversion to the LiveFyre commenting system and instructions on how to sign up for an account.

Full comments policy

Previous Discussion: 90 comments so far…

Comments are moderated by Las Vegas Sun editors. Our goal is not to limit the discussion, but rather to elevate it. Comments should be relevant and contain no abusive language. Comments that are off-topic, vulgar, profane or include personal attacks will be removed. Full comments policy. Additionally, we now display comments from trusted commenters by default. Those wishing to become a trusted commenter need to verify their identity or sign in with Facebook Connect to tie their Facebook account to their Las Vegas Sun account. For more on this change, read our story about how it works and why we did it.

Only trusted comments are displayed on this page. Untrusted comments have expired from this story.

  1. The author of this letter is wrong for a number of reasons. I have thought about this proposition many times over a long period of time and have always come to the opposite conclusion.

    I'm to tired to go into the details at this time, but will post later in the day. Suffice to say that it is wrong to disenfranchise a person because they can benefit from the way they vote.

  2. I think it is important that people write what they think, no matter how appalling it is.

    The more we are aware of these ideas in our society, the more we are prepared to prevent them from becoming reality through elected politicians.

    We cannot let fascism creep up on us through ignorance, especially in a time of economic vulnerability, as happened in Germany with Hitler.

  3. Like it or not, the letter writer hits a traw nerve in many hard working people living the American dream every day. Work is necessary for our well being, both individually and collectively as a society. Taking the privilege to vote away for those who don't and won't work, and rather affording them the same privileges as though they do, impugns the American dream. Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying I agree with the letter writer. I'm saying we should have the debate. And let Americans decide.

    CarmineD

  4. We should not do this. Mr. Valentine, this is one step too far. This would eliminate millions of Obama voters,however,causing Mitt to alter his private comments somewhat. LOL

  5. "This seems like a simple, logical fix, but that's just me."

    Thank goodness it's just you!

  6. The fear behind the letter writers comments and suggestions are real and I share them. When a society that has the vote reaches a place where more than 50 % of the populous is on some kind of government assistance, the chances of going to a place where 75 % are on assistance goes up and the chances of going to a place where less than 50 % are is reduced.

    Argue all you want but human nature is human nature. Once we are given free stuff, we tend to want more and are reluctant to give up anything we have.

    I don't agree that we should take people's right to vote away but I must admit that I share the worry about where we are heading and I don't have any good solutions to offer.

    Michael

  7. Michael,
    100% of the population is assisted by government. Many just don't understand this simple fact. As to this part of the writers letter: "In my opinion, people on public assistance should not be allowed to vote as long as they are receiving it."

    See here:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_righ...

    "The United States Constitution, in Article VI, section 3, states that "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." The Constitution, however, leaves the determination of voting qualifications to the individual states. Over time, the federal role in elections has increased through amendments to the Constitution and enacted legislation, such as the Voting Rights Act of 1965.[1] At least four of the fifteen post-Civil War constitutional amendments were ratified specifically to extend voting rights to different groups of citizens. These extensions state that voting rights cannot be denied or abridged based on the following:
    Birth - "All persons born or naturalized" "are citizens" of the U.S. and the U.S. State where they reside (14th Amendment, 1868)
    "Race, color, or previous condition of servitude" - (15th Amendment, 1870)
    "On account of sex" - (19th Amendment, 1920)
    In Washington, D.C., presidential elections after 164 year suspension by U.S. Congress (23rd Amendment, 1961)
    (For federal elections) "By reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax" - (24th Amendment, 1964)
    (For state elections) Taxes - (Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections, 383 U.S. 663 (1966))
    "Who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of age" (26th Amendment, 1971).
    In addition, the 17th Amendment provided for the direct election of United States Senators."

  8. I think Valentine knows it will never come to pass and is unconstitutional. Yet, he is entitled to his opinion. But, if the left has its way, his right to express himself would be denied and that's the problem with the left. They have little concept about what freedom really is and have no qualms about suppressing it. Unless, of course, it meets their agenda and agrees with it.

  9. Yet again, the party which claims to be the champion of the Constitution shows its utter disdain for our basic civil rights.

    What a joke.

  10. Mr. Valentine, are imagined "welfare queens" dancing along side sugar plum fairies in that distorted vision of yours? It always makes me chuckle when people screaming about upholding the Constitution of the United States seem to be the first to hack out parts of it to suit their narrow minded needs.

    I often ponder on what our Founding Fathers would conclude in these times. Confusion is the first word that comes to mind.

    "Yet again, the party which claims to be the champion of the Constitution shows its utter disdain for our basic civil rights." Well said Kevin.

  11. The last election was won with 69 million votes. Millions don't vote even if you beg. Voting is not an American priority.Most that the letter writer is concerned with don't vote to begin with.

  12. Future (formerly Future2012, but gave up, so soon to be Future2016) grasps for relevance with an offense to basic logic:

    "But it accomplished the goal to make people aware that we have a growing dependency class. The benefit checks are now going to people making $90k. This is not the needy[sic] This is pure vote buying."

    Future can't deny the facts. The GOP is largely to blame for the 47%.

    "When Ronald Reagan signed into law the Tax Reform Act of 1986, he boasted, "Millions of the working poor will be dropped from the tax rolls altogether, and families will get a long-overdue break with lower rates and an almost doubled personal exemption."

    "Both the initial Reagan tax cuts of 1981 and indexing income taxes to inflation in 1985 had a similar effect."

    "In the 1990s, the Republican-controlled Gingrich Congress passed a $500 per child tax credit that also wiped out the income tax liability of many low- to moderate-income households."

    "George W. Bush expanded the child tax credit as president and also signed into law tax cuts that reduced the bottom marginal income tax rate from 15 percent to 10 percent. Both moves increased the percentage of people not paying income tax."

    http://dailycaller.com/2012/09/17/the-re...

    And Future supports Mitt Romney, who's sworn (without details) to cut taxes even further, thus inviting even more Americans into the group the GOP claims to hate so much.

    GOP tax policies have only enabled more individuals to escape the income tax.

    Future's so angry at the 47%, yet Future keeps pulling the level for the party which enables them!

    The party buying votes is the GOP, Future.

    Doh!

  13. Bob, I tend to agree but we just don't need all the administrative costs associated with yet another requirement. But if you work this out, how's about voting restrictions on those who haven't done their time in service to America (military or similar)? How about voting restrictions on those who've never held a job for 5 years and learned what it takes? SCOTUS decision from way back struck down the "property ownership" requirement....

  14. "How about voting restrictions on those who've never held a job for 5 years and learned what it takes?"

    Say goodbye to your voting rights, stay-at-home moms!

    Really, the modern GOP is a joke!

  15. Carmine,4;23 AM,"Don'get me wrong I'm not saying I agree with the letter writer.I'm saying we should have the debate and let Americans decide"

    Excluding people who are on welfare from voting,is not something that is up for debate.To consider it is not very American. If we did exclude people on welfare from voting as has been expressed by Mr. Valentine.Who should we go after next? Latinos, blacks,Italians,Asians,Europeans, etc. Who some might say are not educated enough to vote.This kind of talk and thinking should stop in it's tracks right now.We have more important issues to be concernd about.

  16. Mark,

    I did not agree with the letter writer. Why did you address that big letter to me?

    Michael

  17. Kevin,

    You correctly point out that excluding many people from paying income taxes is an R generated idea.... supported by many D's. Is it your opinion that all the legislation that took all these people off the income tax rolls should be reversed?

    Michael

  18. Mr. Pizzo:

    I don't share your views on this matter. I don't share the letter writer's either. BUT, as I said, with a growing number of people dependent on welfare and government assistance [and some for generations], to the exclusion of working [and especially with end of work to welfare], there should be a national debate. Let the American people decide.

    CarmineD

  19. Michael,
    Because of how wrong you are as to the percentage of United States citizens receiving government assistance. It is 100% if you take moment to think about it.

  20. Mr. Pizzo:

    Using your interpretation of Constitutional Law, if "This kind of talk and thinking should stop in it's tracks right now" what other freedoms should be preempted. And who should make the decisions about doing so?

    CarmineD

  21. "Say goodbye to your voting rights, stay-at-home moms!"

    No, better to say goodbye to stay at home unmarried women who have child after child by man after man so they can collect more in government assistance. Then the children of these women do the same. And so do the grand children.

    Oh...excuse me, but I hope this is not one of those subjects that we can't talk and even think about.

    CarmineD

  22. Carmine,you are way of the subject matter,stick to what you said.The fact that you entertained the Idea of of a debate on whether welfare receiver's should be not allowed to vote, tells me where you want to go with this.It's not open for debate,and never will be.

  23. Mike, surely you're bright enough to understand my position and the point I've made. Mitt Romney and the GOP screech day after day about the 47% who do not pay income tax, and a large part of the reason these people do not pay income tax is the fruition of GOP tax policy.

    If you can't understand the base hypocrisy and stupidity of being angry at the results of your own party's tax policy, then I can't help you.

    Do I believe a family of four making $24,000 a year should pay 14% in income tax? No. Does the GOP? In campaign ads they claim they don't want to raise taxes, but in private fundraisers, they whine about the consequences of the policies they've set in place.

    You're voting for Romney. Can you explain it?

    When you look back at tax credits like the EITC, they were designed to keep people off of welfare. They were a bipartisan idea and the idea worked. Now the GOP has terminal selective memory; forgetting the long history of GOP support for these kinds of tax credits, and blaming the RECIPIENTS of GOP policies for... well, breathing.

    If you institute a minimum 10% tax bracket for the family of 4 I mentioned earlier, then you've taken a family barely outside the federal poverty level and thrust them back underneath it, qualifying them for more benefits. They government would likely pay out more than they received, thus increasing government expenditures, not decreasing them.

    Now the latest GOP meme says that if you were born into poverty, where schools perform poorly, and you fail to break into an income bracket which exceeds the tax breaks afforded to you by GOP policy, you shouldn't be allowed your basic civil rights.

    At some point, shouldn't you recognize how insane the right has become?

  24. Mark,

    I don't understand why you insist on being deliberately obtuse. The point is that historically speaking, the number of people on government based assistance programs has been increasing and during the recession and after it has increased even more quickly.

    I think it is a valid concern for Americans to have along with the fact that the government is spending much more money than it brings in and refuses to raise taxes or cut spending in large enough amounts to make a real difference in the deficit spending and debt.

    I suspect you feel differently, but I don't want to live in a society where government provides as much as it does in most of Europe and taxes are as high as they tend to be in much of Europe. We are heading in that direction and although I think Europe has some advantages over what we do here, overall, I prefer what we have here.

    Michael

  25. Try this line of debate Mr. Pizzo:

    "The United States Constitution, in Article VI, section 3, states that "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." The Constitution, however, leaves the determination of voting qualifications to the individual states. Over time, the federal role in elections has increased through amendments to the Constitution and enacted legislation, such as the Voting Rights Act of 1965.[1] At least four of the fifteen post-Civil War constitutional amendments were ratified specifically to extend voting rights to different groups of citizens. These extensions state that voting rights cannot be denied or abridged based on the following:
    Birth - "All persons born or naturalized" "are citizens" of the U.S. and the U.S. State where they reside (14th Amendment, 1868)
    "Race, color, or previous condition of servitude" - (15th Amendment, 1870)
    "On account of sex" - (19th Amendment, 1920)
    In Washington, D.C., presidential elections after 164 year suspension by U.S. Congress (23rd Amendment, 1961)
    (For federal elections) "By reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax" - (24th Amendment, 1964)

    (For state elections) Taxes - (Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections, 383 U.S. 663 (1966))
    "Who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of age" (26th Amendment, 1971).

    In addition, the 17th Amendment provided for the direct election of United States Senators.

    The "right to vote" is explicitly stated in the U.S. Constitution in the above referenced amendments but only in reference to the fact that the franchise cannot be denied or abridged based solely on the aforementioned qualifications. In other words, the "right to vote" is perhaps better understood, in layman's terms, as only prohibiting certain forms of legal discrimination in establishing qualifications for suffrage. States may deny the "right to vote" for other reasons."

    CarmineD

  26. Mr. Pizzo: The last sentence gives the right to vote, or more correctly the lack thereof, to the states. This would appear to mean, at least to me, that the subject is open to debate.

    CarmineD

  27. Carmine, only in your mind.

  28. "Carmine, only in your mind."

    Unless you want to tell me what I can and can't think. i.e "This kind of talk and thinking should stop in it's tracks right now."

    The new law according to Sam Pizzo. Alleluia.

    CarmineD

  29. Carmine, you're nearly frothing at the mouth. So much hatred...

    Yet you support a party which has passed tax credit after tax credit for the people you feel so superior to!

    Meanwhile you don't have a shred of anger at the thousands of ultra wealthy Americans who evade taxes altogether!

    "There are 78,000 tax filers with incomes of $211,000 to $533,000 who will pay no federal income taxes this year. Even more amazingly, there are 24,000 households with incomes of $533,000 to $2.2 million with zero income tax liability, and 3,000 tax filers with incomes above $2.2 million with the same federal income tax liability as most of those with incomes barely above the poverty level."

    Where's your seething resentment of these people?

  30. "Meanwhile you don't have a shred of anger at the thousands of ultra wealthy Americans who evade taxes altogether!"

    Wrong. I loathe the cheats on both sides of the income scales. But this is not the subject of the letter writer's article.

    CarmineD

  31. carmine-you seem to be confused as to what was said, IN this case it is better to listen-get brain engaged then listen again.

  32. "Voting: A Right, A Privilege, or A Responsibility?

    by Right to Vote Blog, Dean Searcy // Published April 20, 2011

    When Americans talk about their democracy, they typically emphasize the importance of the right to vote. But the fact is that, unlike other democratic rights protected in the First Amendment, voting rights do not have clear constitutional protections. State legislatures have the right to appoint electors in presidential races without holding elections, for example, and states can enact a variety of policies that directly or indirectly infringe on suffrage rights. While strengthening voting rights in the Constitution would seem like a logical step, there's a potential political barrier: confusion about the meaning of "right." "

    CarmineD

  33. "carmine-you seem to be confused as to what was said, IN this case it is better to listen-get brain engaged then listen again."

    I presume by your lack of meaningful commentary here that you are following your own advice.

    CarmineD

  34. Mr. Pizzo:

    The truth, whether you can/want to believe it, is this: Regardless of how despicable you think the letter writer's opinion, and my defense for it, when you advocate as you did that it should not even be discussed you are trampling on your Constitutional rights as well as ours.

    CarmineD

  35. Kevin 9:32: Ever hear of sarcasm?

  36. Kevin,

    To me, this isn't that complex but first let me say that just because I might support an R doesn't automatically indicate that I support everything they spout or do. I would love to have a choice other than Obama or Romney that more closely matches my views.

    I think it is foolish to have people that have an income pay no income taxes. When we do that and decisions are made that 'should' require a tax increase, people that don't pay any income taxes have no incentive to care. To me, that is foolish and wrong. Do I think a family making $ 24,000 should pay 14 %? No I don't. Do I think they should be required to pay something in income taxes. Yes, I do.

    And yes, I understand your point... that R's are hypocritical. They also lie. They are politicians. That's what they do for a living. All of them! If nobody else excludes from consideration all parties and all people that lie and are hypocrites, why am I supposed to do it?

    Can I explain voting for Romney? Yes, but it isn't easy... or I am sure... very convincing to you. Let me tell you what I don't like about Romney. He will increase defense spending and I don't want that. I want to find the waste and get rid of it. He won't raise taxes on anyone and we cannot afford that anymore. He will cut taxes and we can't afford that either. Romney will follow an aggressive foreign policy which I do not favor. Romney will not call for the separation of banks from investment houses, which I favor. He won't do anything to fix our health care and insurance system. There are many other things but you can see that I am not gung ho over Romney or the R's.

    Why won't I vote for Obama? Jobs and the economy should have been his first priority, not health care reform. BIG MISTAKE. Stimulus was needed but he'd worked in Congress for 2 years and should have known if he walked away and handed that stimulus to Congress, it would be lobbied to death and the money would not be wisely allocated. BIG MISTAKE. And he did the same thing with the ACA, which could have been so much better than it is. BIG MISTAKE. We needed income tax reform, re-institution of the Glass Steagall Act, Entitlement reform (raising contribution taxes and eligibility ages for Medicare and SS) and many other things. Obama had the Preidency, the Senate and the House for months before 2010 and did not push for these important items. BIG MISTAKE.

    Bottom line is I don't care for the job he's done, don't agree that wealth re-distribution is the way to go, don't believe in very large government and know we need to reduce deficit spending and Debt.

    Am I happy with Romney and the R's? NO!!!!! Does Obama offer a better alternative? Not in my estimation.

    Michael

  37. Folks,

    It is not unconstitutional. People can voluntarily forgo their vote in exchange for becoming wards of the State.

    Pick a new argument.

    Regards,
    Purgatory

  38. I disagree with the letter, but I have wondered if it would be reasonable to require voters to take the exact same citizenship test that immigrants must pass to be a US citizen. The results might be very surprising.

  39. BTW, slightly off topic, perhaps not since it was hinted at above:

    Romney released his 2011 taxes and I believe a summary of the taxes he paid for the last 10 years. The gist, if my info is correct and I understand it correctly, is that Gov Romney paid on average about 14 percent in taxes over the period. This, if correct, confirms the answer to the question whether he paid more than 10 percent in taxes during this period.

    CarmineD

  40. Boftx,

    The results of making Americans take the citizenship test would not surprise me at all. Just watch one man on the street interview and you KNOW that most Americans could not come close to passing that test.

    Michael

  41. Carmine,"The new law according to Sam Pizzo, alleluia"

    To even suggest that welfare receiver's should be open for debate,whether they have a right to vote or not as you suggested is crazy and you know it.I suppose some may think why stop here let's go after people who are collecting unemployment insurance benifits, and disability payments as well.

  42. Those companies or people who have Government contracts should not be allowed to vote because their interests are clearly personal.

  43. Why shouldn't people be allowed to vote for elected representatives that represent their interests? Because yours are in conflict? Tough luck, pal, that's republican (small 'r') government. You always have recourse to your adolescent Randian fantasy of a creator's strike.

    Besides, I wouldn't be too worried if I were you, the poor vote against their interests all the time.

  44. Michael,
    It is not obtuse to understand that all of us depend on government assistance every day of our lives. Saying that less than 100% of people use and need assistance is factually untrue. You simply don't recognize your dependence on a functioning government to even live your daily existence.

  45. Writer says: "In my opinion, people on public assistance should not be allowed to vote as long as they are receiving it. At the point they apply and are qualified for welfare, I believe they should be required to sign away their voting rights until they no longer require assistance. At that point, their voting rights would be reinstated."

    Without a doubt, one of the most UNAMERICAN sentiments I have ever come across in print. Mind-bogglingly ludicrous.

  46. James Estevez:
    "Why shouldn't people be allowed to vote for elected representatives that represent their interests?"

    You are describing those people who are on welfare but claim that welfare recipients should not be allowed to vote. This is a totally irrational conclusion and there is no need to use debate, a rational function to debate insanity (an institutionalized form of insanity).

  47. Mark,

    I can only go back and forth with you for so long because it gets tedious. I never said we don't need government. The argument is not over no government versus total government; it is over how much government.

    The claim that the other side wants no government is and always has been untrue. To claim your side wants all government all the time is just as untrue.

    I'll repeat... stop being purposely obtuse.

    Michael

  48. My goodness. Perhaps civil servants, seniors, the unemployed, single mothers and high school drop outs shouldn't vote either in Mr Valentine's world. Should membership in a prestigious country club or being a one percenter be required also? A democracy is supposed to be inclusive, rather than exclusive, otherwise it would not be a government of the people. Perhaps Mr Valentine should not vote either, since apparently he failed to grasp the concepts of high school civics.

  49. "To even suggest that welfare receiver's should be open for debate,whether they have a right to vote or not as you suggested..."

    It's the law, Mr. Pizzo, the law. The Constitution of the US, First Amendment freedom of speech, and the States' laws on voting. Not me.

    CarmineD

  50. "FOUR MORE YEARS FOR PRESIDENT OBAMA!!!"

    Mr. Teamster:

    July 13, 2012, Roanoke, VA. If you have a successful business, you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen.

    Sept 5, 2012: News story breaks that President Obama attends only 44 perccent of his intelligence briefings.

    Sept 11, 2012: Libyan attack on Consulate in Benghazi kills 4 Americans and mid east turmoil.

    Sept 12, 2012: President Obama and his Administration on the Autumn Crisis and murder of 4 Americans in Libya: Spontaneous protests over a youtube video.

    Sept 20, 2012, US Intel expert in the mid east speaking before Congress: The murders of the Libyan Ambassador and his 3 member security detail was a terrorist attack linked to al Quaeda.

    Sept 20, 2012, IG Report on Fast and Furious, calls for the resignation and discipline of 14 high level DOJ officials for death of ATF border agent.

    Land mines are going off all around President Obama. His hand picked cabinet level heads, remember GSA too, can't manage. His foreign policy is in disarray. And GM wants the Government out of its business and wants its stock sold at a loss to Americans of $15 Billion. GM says it will pay the loss plus the $50 billion in US taxpayer funds back.

    GM is alive and Bin Laden is dead. How's that working for you?

    Debates are next.

    CarmineD

  51. Carmine,"It's the law Mr.Pizzo the law.The Constitution of the US,First Amendnent freedom of speech,and the states laws on voting.Not me".

    You have changed the subject again we are not talking about freedom of speech.We are talking about the idea that you would even consider talking away a persons right to vote,because they are on welfare.With your suggestion that we should have a debate and let the American people decide.I say leave it alone.Most don't want to be on welfare.This kind of thinking just puts poor people in a more depressed state of mind.

  52. It is about freedom of speech and the right for this letter writer to take an unpopular stand, and me defend his right to do so.

    Neither you or anyone else, except the States, have the authority by law to say and do otherwise.

    If you can't and/or won't see that, then I must agree to disagree with you on the subject.

    CarmineD

  53. "This kind of thinking just puts poor people in a more depressed state of mind."

    I didn't realize Mr. Pizzo that among your many talents you are also a board certified pschycologist who can speak with authority on the mental state of all the poor people.

    CarmineD

  54. PS: EXcuse my incorrect spelling. Too early in the morning and the cup of joe hasn't taken effect yet.

    CarmineD

  55. Carmine,"It is about freedom of speech and the right for this letter writer to take an unpopular stand,and me defend his right".

    Nobody is talking about freedom of speech,we are talking about your suggestion that we have a debate on whether we should take away a person's right to vote because they are on welfare.Why can't and/or won't you see and recognize what you wrote?

  56. "we are talking about your suggestion that we have a debate on whether we should take away a person's right to vote"

    Correction Mr. Pizzo: It was the letter writer's suggestion. I said I don't agree with it BUT I defend his right, regardless of how despicable it sounds, to say it. And let the American people decide.

    You sir have already done so, thanks to freedom of speech.

    CarmineD

  57. See Mr. Sam Pizzo in the US we not only defend people for saying things we like to hear, but we also defend them for saying things we don't like to hear. That's why it's called freedom of speech.

    CarmineD

  58. Carmine,"that's why it's called freedom of speech"

    We are not talking about Mr.Valentine's freedom of speech rights,which we all cherish.

    We are talking about you and your position on having a debate on whether we should remove people who are on welfare from voting.Why can't you address the issue,instead of wandering off on Mr.Valentine's freedom of speech rights?

  59. <<No, better to say goodbye to stay at home unmarried women who have child after child by man after man so they can collect more in government assistance. Then the children of these women do the same. And so do the grand children>>

    Good grief, Carmine. Get a grip!! There are many "stay at home" moms who CHOOSE to stay home and raise their kids, whether they are married or not. WHO are YOU to judge these women? And really - for such a good, practicing Catholic, you are a bigot and have no compassion for your fellow human beings. Shame on you for NOT following Christ's teachings. Make sure you tell the priest that you have no tolerance or compassion for others on your next trip to the Sacrament of Reconciliation.

  60. We've all seen really weird and stupid letters that the Sun prints, but this one takes the cake!!

    I think if it was up to Carmine - he would suggest ALL WOMEN - single mothers, married women, old women, single women, sidisabled women, Black women, White women, Hispanic women - you get the picture -- if it was up to Carmine - ALL WOMEN would lose their right to vote.

    ANd now we'll get 12 posts that ramble on quoting the Consitution and womens' right to vote.

  61. Michael,
    Good! Then you agree that 100% of people receive assistance and your original contention is factually untrue. Well it is a start.

  62. Sam,
    Trying to get Carmine to see reason is like trying to teach a horse to do math. It only frustrates you.

  63. We all know that there are cheaters and frauders in the welfare system.But the majority of welfare recievers are people who are in need.

    To even think that we should consider taking away another person's voting rights, because they recieve welfare benifits is low.

    Under the 14th Amendment states have the authority to make laws that deny voting rights to convicted inmates in prison.Taking someone's voting rights away for recieving welfare benifits is not and should not be a consideration.

  64. "I think if it was up to Carmine - he would suggest ALL WOMEN - single mothers, married women, old women, single women, sidisabled women, Black women, White women, Hispanic women - you get the picture -- if it was up to Carmine - ALL WOMEN would lose their right to vote."

    You are talking about President Woodrow Wilson, a progressive democrat with personal and professional ties to New Jersey and Virginia, like me. Wilson was anti-civil rights and against women voting. As president the women suffrage movement called Wilson the leading proponent in the USA against women voting. Fortunately, he lost and women won. [19th Amendment].

    CarmineD

  65. "Sam,
    Trying to get Carmine to see reason is like trying to teach a horse to do math. It only frustrates you."

    Mr. Schaffer:

    Horses have 4 hooves, people have 10 fingers and 10 toes. Anatomically, people have an advantage over horses. Not an equal playing field.

    CarmineD

  66. "Taking someone's voting rights away for recieving welfare benifits is not and should not be a consideration."

    Mr. Pizzo: Your opinion. You're entitled to it. Just as the letter writer is entitled to his. Freedom of speech. Guaranteed to all. Not just those you agree with.

    CarmineD

  67. If Mr. Valentine's concern is that those receiving public assistance will vote for those pledged to continue that assistance does he further suggest that recipients of any tax break, subsidy, government contract or other redistributive scheme also lose the right to vote. Perhaps we could extend that proposal to Americans who ship American jobs overseas. Or shelter their money from taxes in the Cayman Islands. The list of potential parasites is endless.

  68. "Mr. Pizzo,your opinion your entitled to it.Just as the letter writer is entitled to his.Freedom of speech.Guaranteed to all not those you agree with".

    Carmine, it's you I have been speaking to in my posts.I have made it clear to you more than once that I was speaking to you.I will not be swayed by you into going into what Mr. Valentine wrote in his editorial. Your suggestion that we put up for debate taking away welfare folks voting rights. Try and stay on the subject matter and the posts that I have directed To Carmine Difazio,and no one else.

  69. Bob Valentine:

    Are you saying that a person's financial status and the fact that they receive public assistance should determine their right to vote? That does not sound like the America that I know. Let me help the audience articulate what you actually mean. All unemployed non-whites on welfare should not be able to vote. Doesn't that sound better? It makes more sense too because after Thurstan Howell, III's (aka Mitt Romney) comments, we all know who those "people" are going to vote for.

    YouTube: I noticed that people who post ideas that they can't defend on YouTube, usually disable or censor comments and ratings. They want to put stuff out but they don't anyone to critique or vote on their cockamamie ideas or beliefs. They want to stop people from voting in the contest of ideas. And that's what every election is all about.

    If you have political ideas and plans that some might consider spurious, you need to keep the voters in the dark or stop them from voting entirely. It seems like Mitt tipped his hand and now his supporters will have to resort to limiting the types of people who can vote.

    The internet will kill stupid ideas.

  70. Mr. Teamster:

    Lest I foget the biggest land mine of all: Clint Eastwood. It's half time and we're coming back!

    CarmineD

  71. "Your suggestion that we put up for debate taking away welfare folks voting rights. Try and stay on the subject matter and the posts that I have directed To Carmine Difazio,and no one else."

    I reminded you before, Mr. Pizzo. Now once again. I too just like you have freedom of speech. Whether or not you like what it is I say and post.

    Do you think Chick-Filet was about the sandwiches? Or freedom of speech.

    CarmineD

  72. "Carmine and the rest of you, shut up, sit down, or leave."

    Freedom of speech. You think it apples just to your vitriol. And you would like it to be that way if you had your way. Sadly you don't.

    You missed the real point. And always have. 47 percent, and growing, of Americans paying no federal income taxes, zero, notta, is a travesty and threat on the longevity of the American society as we know it.

    CarmineD

  73. El Lobo:

    You disappoint. No commentary on your hero: President Woodrow Wilson. No defense for the progressive president? I would have expected you to carry his banner and wave it high here. You the defender of progressives like Woodrow. Silence. Good defense. Speaks volumes.

    CarmineD

  74. Carmine,"I reminded you before Mr. Pizzo. Now once again. I too just like you have freedom of speech. Whether or not you like what it is I have to say or post".

    Nice try Carmine,you now say " I reminded you once before,now once again".I too have freedom of speech.Fact is you never reminded me of your freedom of speech only Mr.Valentine's.Your earlier posts point to this.Such as on Sept.21,11:08 AM,Sept 22,.5:31 AM.,5:47 AM,.10:18 AM,2:22 PM,four on the same day.Plus your changing the subject, and wording on other posts.By waiting a day and adding words and changing the subject,changes nothing.You seem to be the king of twist.

  75. Michel Douglas said- "Greed, for the lack of a better word is good" which brings us to the condition that the American economy is in and many Americans find them doing without, no jobs, expired unemployment benefits and wages out paced by inflation today. The middle class is being and has been decimated over the last five years, but in good times the general philosophy was to eliminate welfare. President Clinton was on that path of eliminating welfare through job creation, as his administration touts having created an excess of twenty-two mil. jobs.

    While today there has been about an eighteen percent loss of middle class jobs in the American economy. Just look around less Nurses, Post-secondary Teachers, Accountants and Auditors, Everything related to computers (i.e. analysts, engineers, etc.) Sales, Data entry and communications, Consulting, Financial fields (i.e. loans, credit cards, etc.) Pharmacy and Physical Therapists and middle-level administrators, with most of those jobs not returning any time soon. The outlook for jobs today is only obtaining employment in part by others retiring or jobs left due to centergy, families pooling their resources to weather this economic storm.

    Entitlements/welfare has become more of a reality for folks today and because of this dependency most folks who in good time would not seek this help have this taboo about it. And while no one is ever going to get rich via any of those programs it seems folks still think of recipients as having a scarlet letter on them if they do, yet most everyone in the middle class today knows or is related to someone who is a recipient.

    The time is now; we need to stand up to repression, this land is my land this land is your land and all the resources coming out of it is ours. Every flake of gold, silver, copper, you name it, tree, oil, or grass land belongs to us the people. It is high time we get paid for our resources instead of letting big business just pillage, billion dollar tax write-offs, and subsidies are the modes operando of Politian's who are the enablers.

    If the petroleum companies/ big corporations paid America (We the People) what they have to pay other nations for their resource we would all be getting dividends, instead only the elite few one percent's reap this windfall and they have the audacity to squawk for paying graduated taxes. Every single American is a millionaire, albeit not very bright to realize it. Where all the monies spent by congress added up in toto over an Americans life span you to would come to understand that entitlements is noting. And that a living wage, thirty dollars, via minimum wage is far overdue. Stop being truculent over crumbs and start demanding we get paid. Only Monarchies keep resource wealth at their disposal, why for the life of me have we let Politian's carry that authority?

    God Bless America may she always stand

  76. Very well expressed Ramon!

  77. Whinner says "Oh and Carmine, you have no ideal what your talking about with your tax comments. have another rum and coke. A person making 35,000 a year in the United States probably pays 20% of their income for taxes."

    Sorry Whinner, but go to the IRS web site and do the, math yourself.

    A person making $35,000 per year in the US pays on their US Income Tax (worst case scenario, single filer, no children, no deductions other than standard) 9.8% of their gross income as their effective tax rate.

    If that person were married and had two children, the effective tax rate drops to 1.4% at $499 in US Income Tax owed (or lower depending on additional deductions, this is just standard deductions, EITC and CTC)

    So your final comparison is somewhat skewed. You say this person pays 20% and Romney around 10%....but the real numbers are Romney 13.1% and this theoretical person, 9.8% or less (according to the IRS, the value for effective tax rate for average filer at that level would be 1.8%)

    So I'd say that Romney's 13.1% is far greater than this person's 1.8%.

    For all the critics who insist that Romney's 13.1% effective US Income Tax rate is "lower than most people", I challenge you to find someone with an effective US Income Tax rate of higher than 13.1% and tell us more about them.

  78. "Fact is you never reminded me."

    Fact is Mr. Pizzo I did, off line and privately.

    It is always about the First Amendment right of Freedom of Speech. Always. That's why the Founders and Framers made it Number One.

    CarmineD

  79. It's not just the tax rate it's the dollar amount. Romney has paid more than his fair share of taxes during his lifetime. Anyone here, with friends and family included, pay more taxes in their lifetime than Romney paid in one year of his? I seriously doubt it.

    CarmineD

  80. One of the things I always liked about the fellas running the casinos was their understanding of numbers and to be more on point, percentages. Take Romney's numbers to one of the old veterans to help you determine what their take should be or how to stack, and what the real amount must be otherwise from those numbers. You would be impressed with the ideas they will tell you.

    Question, how much is four mil. with it being equal to ten percent of income as required tithe by the Mormon church.

    I think his income must have been around forty mil. but then again he reduce his actual demonstrated deduction of charitable contribution, therefore he must have made more than forty mil.

    A minor point, meaning he then put away 40-13=27. Just guessing here don't release the LDS hounds, I just had a question not an accusation.

    Now let's go a little further and see if that dog hunts. Say Romney made in excess of forty mil. and stashed twenty seven mil, when you adjust his total tax per income he only paid four percent, but who cares anyway he can't spend it all in this life time, but wait his heirs can once they do away with capital gains right and were all for that right.

  81. Carmine,"fact is you never reminded me"

    Just as I figured you would do is wait until it went into the archives.So other commenters would not waste time looking for a response from you.We were talking about you saying you reminded me of your rights of free speech.Which you never did until yesturday when you insisted that you had done this all along.You have repeated on your posts about Mr. Valentine freedom of speech not yours. Nice try but it won't work because we all have your number.

  82. Mr. Pizzo: I am addressing you not other commenters. And I did post to you privately about freedom of speech. You forgot? I said, let me remind you again, I have the right to post here just like you and can say what I please just like you can back. Don't you recall? It wasn't that long ago. Freedom of speech. First amendment right guaranteed to all.

    CarmineD

  83. Carmine,Listen to Jeff.

  84. <<You missed the real point. And always have. 47 percent, and growing, of Americans paying no federal income taxes, zero, notta, is a travesty and threat on the longevity of the American society as we know it>>

    How much in federal taxes have YOU paid in the last few years? What will you pay this year? And next year? And the year after that? And the year after...... you get the picture.

  85. <<Do you think Chick-Filet was about the sandwiches? Or freedom of speech.

    CarmineD>>

    It was about generating publicity for a business - good or bad. It's called "marketing".

  86. What the letter writer fails to mention, in all fairness, are the disabled folks who want to work, but, cannot due to no fault of their own. I really hope this writer would not suggest taking away their voting privileges too. Yes, we have many who game the system because they feel entitled to all that neatsy-poo welfare (free money), while they ride around in pricey SUV's, gabbing on IPhones, and toting around Coach bags.

    You can bet I see those all the time at the grocery store around the first of the month; parking their fancy SUV's in the disabled parking spaces, and walking with ZERO hinderance into the store wearing flashy clothes, salon-fresh manicures and hair-do's. They don't look disabled to me. Too bad the state AG doesn't seem to have the time to investigate welfare fraud these days.

  87. Comment removed by moderator. Personal Attack

  88. Dear Bob, and anyone who agrees with him:

    I could be wrong but here in Nevada I've noticed many people who claim to be on some sort of public assistance are physically capable of working. However, they are unemployable due to their diminished mental capacity and extreme lack of education. They don't fit into the category of being legally mentally disabled and they are truly unable to perform the simplest tasks due to their upbringing. If you want to see this first hand, just drive a few blocks east of Las Vegas Bl. on Fremont St., although you can see many other examples in other places around this city mostly within 5 miles of where ever you live.

    These people, through no fault of their own do not possess the most basic skills to get or keep a job. Some are drug addicted (alcohol and nicotine are drugs). It is unlikely that they will ever be made well. To compound the problem they have more children than the educated do and their numbers rise disproportionately compared to the citizen of average income and intelligence.

    There will probably be no law in our life time that bans the poor and uneducated from voting. It's unfortunate but Las Vegas seems to have disproportionate number of these type of people for various reasons, but what are we going to do? Someone please explain to me how removing the right for the poor and uneducated to vote will solve their economic problems and contribute to the well being of the rest of us?

    I challenge everyone to walk around City Center and then walk just one block on East Fremont St. between 8th and 9th streets and tell me what's wrong with this picture?

    I think a way out of this mess starts with personal responsibility. From the government down to the poorest person in this city, all have been conditioned to pass the buck. Blame the other guy is the name of the game. Bob wants to blame people on welfare for our problems and take away their voting rights. But would that help empower someone who is capable but fell on hard times or would it punish them for a situation that they were not responsible for? Yes there are some people on public assistance who paid taxes when they worked, who are looking for work and who have been devastated by this economy. What sinister mind could come up with plan to add even more frustration and pain to this person's life by stripping them of their most basic right?

    Bob, when I first started writing this I wanted to take a second look at your idea and maybe reconsider what I had previously posted. But Sir, after further review, I can say with a great degree of certainty that you and the carnival barkers that agree with you would benefit greatly by raising your rebel flag and taking a hike down to Mississippi.

  89. Comment removed by moderator. Personal Attack

  90. Comment removed by moderator. Personal Attack