Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
Stumble
Friday, Sept. 21, 2012 | 2 a.m.
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.
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.
Oh my God, Mr. Valentine! I can't believe you publicly wrote what you did. But, even more, I can't believe the Las Vegas Sun printed this truly absurd and outrageous letter to the editor.
Heck, why stop there? Ban minorities from voting too. And, don't forget to ban us retirees, the handicapped, the unemployed, and anybody else who does not fit into the acceptable category of the Romney / Ryan plan for the economic resurgence of a "members only club" supremacist America.
I know what you truly meant. Why didn't you just come out and write it all from within you? I'm sure the Las Vegas Sun would have still published your letter. After all, presidential candidate Romney said it. Why not you, Mr. Valentine?
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.
Bradley,
Nicely stated! And at 2:40 a.m. Saying that at 2:40 is a fantastic job.
Have a nice day.
Peacelily,
You are absolutely correct.
--
--
Clearly the liberals are going nuts with the tongue in cheek statement
But this raises the point that when you are dependent on the government redistributing wealth to you.
Democrats bases their campaigns on government largess. You will generally vote for the guy giving the handout.
--
Obama is running on redistribution
In 1980, about 30 percent of Americans received some form of government benefits. Today, about 49 percent do.
In 1960, government transfers to individuals totaled $24 billion.
By 2010, that total was 100 times as large. Even after adjusting for inflation, entitlement transfers to individuals have grown by more than 700 percent over the last 50 years.
- 9-18-12 New York at Club 40/40 -- President Obama on redistribution of wealth says "we're on the brink of moving America in a direction where we're going to be more just, more fair."
--
--
President Obama playing his role of celebrity-in-chief with a glamorous fundraiser at the downtown nightclub of hip-hop mogul Jay-Z and his wife, superstar singer Beyonce. Obama addressed a group of 100 supporters at the club 40/40 on West 25th Street, his supporters having paid $40,000 apiece for the privilege of sipping champagne, lounging on luxurious, pale couches and noshing.
- In 2008 Obama tells "Joe the Plumber" he wants to "spread the wealth around."
- Conference at Loyola University; OBAMA "I think the TRICK is figuring out how do we structure government systems that pool resources and hence facilitate some redistribution -- because I ACTUALLY BELIEVE IN REDISTRIBUTION ... to make sure that everybody's got a shot."
- We understand that Obama tried to hit back at Romney during a taping of the "Late Show" with David Letterman, disputing that 47% of Americans aren't required to pay federal income taxes and another 47% are taking a check in the mail."
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
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
"This seems like a simple, logical fix, but that's just me."
Thank goodness it's just you!
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
I don't agree with not allowing them to vote. What I do agree with is drug testing all people on welfare and food stamps and voter ID.
I'm also for drug testing all people on welfare and food stamps, as long as we also drug test ALL politicians.
We pay them also.
I agree whole heartedly with this idea. Students enrolled in college full-time however should be exempt from this, as they are taking the steps necessary to become a productive part of society.
.
I'd like to see it go one step further as well. Along with losing their vote while on government assistance, I'd also like to see birth control mandated to those on assistance as well. If they refuse birth control, they would not be eligible for assistance.
.
If they have religious issues with birth control, they can forego government assistance, and instead seek help from their church or temple. I'm sure the fine upstanding religious types would gladly open their doors and wallets to those less fortunate than themselves who wish to continue to have children despite their ability to actually financially support them.
.
Michael Casler is absolutely correct in his response. Once we pass the 50% point of our country living off of government aid, there will be no going back. Republicans will be nothing more then a historical note, and all of our future politicians will be whichever democrat comes up with the best welfare, food stamps and public housing plan.
.
We will become the land of the entitled, enabled, and unmotivated. If you can't manage to be a productive part of society, why should you get the right to vote.
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."
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.
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.
"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 ... to vote."
And if teabaggers had their way we'd still have a poll tax too.
And schools teaching our children that the earth is flat and about 6000 years old.
And that a woman's body can automatically reject an unwanted pregnancy brought on by "legitimate rape".
And that yet more tax cut welfare for corporations and the super-rich "job creators" will get this economy turned around.
Uh huh, you betcha.
99 looks like you fell for the tongue-in-cheek joke on you. You fell hard.
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
This is pure vote buying.
Glad you are aghast
---
OBAMA:
"I think the TRICK is figuring out how do we structure government systems that pool resources and hence facilitate some redistribution -- because I ACTUALLY BELIEVE IN REDISTRIBUTION ... to make sure that everybody's got a shot."
---
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.
Oh my, this is bad. While some on welfare are there by either their own poor decisions or simply 'family tradition', many are there because of situations completely outside their control. What's the difference between welfare recipients voting for someone who they think is going to make their life easier, and the wealthy voting for someone who they think is going to make their life easier? Our whole system is out of control, no one cares about the constitution, and neither of the ruling parties are going to do anything except make their own lives easier.
Using the same logic, members of the military should not be allowed to vote because they may vote out the politicians who want to send them to war, and that may not be in the best interest of the country. Employees of defense contractors should not be allowed to vote because they are voting for people who fund the contracts. Government employees at all level should not be allowed to vote because they may vote out the politicians who voted against the contracts. Etc, Etc, Etc.
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.
There is a difference between temporary need suport welfare programs that has permanent users making up to $80k - and programs like SS Medicare, veterans benefit
@Gerry Hageman I completely agree with you.
Most Americans who can vote aren't even registered to vote. Even voters that are registered, only a fraction (not even half) actually vote during an election.
One needs to seriously look at Congress (they really are the ones on government assistance)...they get to vote themselves raises and other perks. This and other issues should be more of a concern to the voters and citizens of the USA.
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!
99 wow your anger against the working class and small businesses is unrelenting
You left out the part where the OBAMA STIMULUS extend unemployment checks to 99 weeks or the part where the OBAMA STIMULUS eliminated the 3 month limit on able bodied people being on Food stamps or the part where OBAMACARE gives subsides to people making up to $88.4k or the part where work for welfare rules now allow for smoke cessation class to qualify for the dole
Really glad you are finally fired up about all the dependency
AND since you think it is all Conservative fault - then you should have no problem telling Obama to work OUTSIDE of DC to dial back these vote getting programs to only those that are needy
Thanks in advance for your support
----
People who make more than a million a year should not be allowed to vote. Politicians who promise a tax cut to them are just begging for their vote and this leads to increasing the national debt.
The Town Idiot.
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....
"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!
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.
Mark,
I did not agree with the letter writer. Why did you address that big letter to me?
Michael
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
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
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.
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
This letter is yet another example of the conservative worldview which says: if you don't think and act like me, you are unworthy. Bob Valentine would turn recipients of public assistance into felons for purposes of voting. That's a good one.
I'll offer him a compromise. I'll agree to withhold the privilege of voting from those receiving public assistance, if he will agree to do the same for private businesses that depend on public subsidies. The owners, shareholders and employees of those people-known-as-corporations who receive special tax deals, should, like Mr. Valentine's undeserving welfare recipients, be forbidden from voting until their jobs and dividends are no longer subsidized by taxpayers. Deal?
"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
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.
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?
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
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
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
Carmine, only in your mind.
"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
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?
"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
Even for something in the the Sun, this letter is pretty silly (unless you're just trying to generate buzz).
And I can't even tell what side of the spectrum he's on, other than maybe "totalitarian". The Dems/Liberals certainly wouldn't want welfare recipients denied the right to vote, since statistically they tend to favor Dems over the GOP. But the GOP/Conservatives lean toward a more strict Constitutionalist point of view, and abrogating the Constitution by denying them the right to vote would be anethema for most.
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.
"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
"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
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
Kevin 9:32: Ever hear of sarcasm?
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
47 per cent of the citizens in this country are the only real recipients of a "free" country. They get police and fire protection for free, they get protection by the Army, Navy, Air Force ,Marines, and the Coast Guard for FREE!!! Their children get FREE lunches at school. Some children even get a box lunch sent home on Fridays. I guess that is for Momma and Poppa to eat. Lets face it folks. The citizens (47 percent) love the free stuff. let's keep giving it to them whether they vote or not. What the hell, Your dog don't vote and you feed him don't you?
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
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.
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
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
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.
Those companies or people who have Government contracts should not be allowed to vote because their interests are clearly personal.
Right on!!! While we're at it, disenfranchise everyone on social security or medicare - they have an unreasonable interest in maintaining their entitlements. Disenfranchise everyone on the federal payroll - and also those on state, county, city and special district payrolls - they are only interested in protecting their jobs. Disenfranchise everyone in active duty with the military; disenfranchise everyone on a federal retirement, including military; disenfranchise everyone with an outstanding student loan; disenfranchise everyone who has received a federal grant or has taken a federal subsidy; Disenfranchise everyone who holds, or has ever held, a federally backed mortgage. They are ALL interested only in protecting their own respective entitlements.
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.
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.
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.
That's wrong.Not everyone is taking advantage of the welfare system.example: husband left wife with 3 little ones, thank god for welfare.It took awhile but,she found a job,put herself thru school and, got her family off the welfare system and so forth, and so on.the welfare system gives you just enough to keep you poor. what makes you think everyone on welfare wants to stay on welfare,and live like that? that's no party.stop being so mean.For the grace of God it could be YOU .
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).
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
I'm assuming Mr. Valentine doesn't receive Medicare or Social Security, then.
What about the large companies that accepted corporate welfare? Should they be allowed to vote--afterall, they are considered a "person" and did accept public assistance. So really, not one of those shareholders should have the right to vote either (according to Mr. Valentine's logic). Maybe they will just cancel eachother out. Hmmm..
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.
Another ignorant, heartless republican letter.
YES, these republicans ARE DESPERATE.
We will out-vote these heartless republicans in
droves.
FOUR MORE YEARS FOR PRESIDENT OBAMA!!!
... and I think that anyone who voted for George W Bush twice be permanently disenfranchised since they have proven themselves incompetent to make intelligent political choices.
Unfortunately, the secret ballot would make such a rule unenforceable except by an honor system and that can't work because those who are guilty are Republicans.
So...Welfare recipients shouldn't vote. Now let's quantify "Welfare". Does the recipient of S.S.I. qualify as "welfare recipient"? How about Disability,are they "Welfare" as well? While You're at it,as previously asked/mentioned,let's go ahead and remove Cargill and all it's subsidiaries, as well as it's employees,as one of the largest Agri-Companies, They've received BILLIONS in "corporate welfare" monies.Since they're removed from the right to vote,let's take away their right to lobby as well. It only makes sense,as they'll have no say/choice in who is their Government rep. Lil' too dumb to do the math,but I'd imagine it's a HUGE number of people involved.Oh,and since We're removing rights for "Welfare Recipients"This would include ALL politicians as they get a 850$ per diem,not attached to their pay, for "incidentals',seems like Welfare to Me...
To blanket statement that a "class' of people should lose the right to vote,simply as a matter of lack of money, is not only contradictory to most everything our Government stands for/on,it also shows that the very people making these statements are doomed to repeat history,as the history of their very own parties voting records begat the "situation" that is at the heart of this discussion.
I would hope that the discourse remains civil and honest,but more than anything,EVERYONE gets their say. Mine Brothers and Sisters, Whom I fought alongside and would do so again, come from a long line of people who fought for the very right/s that are being discussed! I may not agree with the opinion expressed,but I agree with their right to express it and be heard!
"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
"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
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.
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
"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
PS: EXcuse my incorrect spelling. Too early in the morning and the cup of joe hasn't taken effect yet.
CarmineD
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?
"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
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
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?
<<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.
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.
It doesn't take a genius to recognize that the people who are not violently opposed to this letter, including the moronic thought "It should be open for discussion" are people who have lost their way and are no longer good Americans.
They are interested in raw, nnaked power at the expense of anyone who they can take advantage of.
Voting should be the easiest thing an American does. To have to register is ridiculous, show up, vote, and go home. Got a boss and kids that keep you away from your local precinct? Mail your ballot.
Don't be afraid of Americans you xenophobes. I WANT to hear Americans choices, not try to sweep the poor under the rug.
Very sinful thought processes. I am disappointed in the lot of you on the side of this letter writer. Cowards.
Michael,
Good! Then you agree that 100% of people receive assistance and your original contention is factually untrue. Well it is a start.
Sam,
Trying to get Carmine to see reason is like trying to teach a horse to do math. It only frustrates you.
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.
"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
"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
"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
Following Carmines logic, the mass assassination of republican voters should be up for discussion. Following his logic further, it should be logical to arrest those who plan that type of activity.
Following that logic further, those who try to take away a citizens voting rights should be liable for criminal and civil penalties.
Carmine and the rest of you, shut up, sit down, or leave. We aren't buying your prescription of "Take two hatred pills and a dose of anti immigrant potion" and call us when you too are a xenophobe.
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.
Carmine continues to believe that Mitt Romney is going to win come November. WOW!
Nothing new there!
Of course, most of the recent polls don't share Carmine's belief.
Romney might have a chance to win come November if the man could learn to keep his mouth shut.
Of course, fat chance of that happening...
The guy has a terrible case of "foot & mouth disease" and he can't resist saying stupid things.
He has not figured out that he no longer needs to say unbelievably stupid things just to please his extreme right-wing base...
It not like they're going to, at this point in time, suddenly decide that their not going to vote for him......
90% of the people who are going to vote out there have already make-up their mind about who they're going to vote for...
The out come of the election will be decided by the 10% who haven't decided how they're going to vote......the so called "independents."
Romney continues to say stupid things which drives the undecided 10%, the "independents," over into the Obama camp...
Hmmmm...... maybe Mitt just isn't smart enough to be president?
Of course, it must be pointed out that there's NO IQ requirement for people running for the White House.....
If that was the case, George W Bush would NEVER have been nominated....
"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.
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.
Want to applaud the patriotic American people who have been working too hard to keep up with the right wing xenophobic poster's who post comments here day in and day out.
Glad to see you here. It warms the heart.
dukeofdeath......
YES, the internet will kill stupid ideas.
AND thank God for Al Gore's invention of the
internet.
Republicans will never again lie their way into
the White House.
And thank God for cell phone video, youtube and
this SUN website.
ALWAYS VOTE DEMOCRATIC!!!
Jeff, El_Lobo, Mark, Sam and Det--Munch...
Great comments again.
Carmine.....
You can't fool us.
The only land mines going off are around romney
and the WORST republican campaign I have ever seen
in my life.
Rick Santorum was correct when he said that
romney was the WORST republican to go up against
PRESIDENT OBAMA.
NOW, most republican politicians won't be seen
anywhere near romney.
You and Casler may be the only two people in the
country voting for this greedy republican.
Mr. Teamster:
Lest I foget the biggest land mine of all: Clint Eastwood. It's half time and we're coming back!
CarmineD
"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
"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
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
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.
Carmine quoted the brilliant poster, me, then pontificated like a dying breed:
""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"
Part of freedom of speech is to be, at times shouted down, and having tomatoes tossed at you if you are a jerk.
Consider yourself splattered.
If you would stop at income tax you might get a sympathetic hearing, what you are dealing with now is the memory of the tea partiers coming into vogue as budget hawks turned out to be wolves that want to eat, then discard anyone who disagrees with them, so yeah, you cranky old man, shut up, we are sick of you. Splat.
All you did was try to kill union rights and sneak inside womens doctors offices. Sicko's
Unfortunately a life on public assistance has become a career choice. It is not sustainable.
I recently read a story of a convenience store clerk who would not sell cigarettes to a 20 year old paying with his foodstamp card. She got fired. And so it goes.
Rusty:
She quit, then was not given a chance to work during her one week notice. Typical knee jerk reaction by a right winger.
Can't you read?
"After four years on the job, a New Hampshire woman was fired because she refused to sell cigarettes to a customer who tried to pay with an Electronic Benefits Transfer (EBT) card (the debit card equivalent of food stamps), according to the Sentinel Source.
Jackie R. Whiton said that a 20-something-year-old male came into her Big Apple convenience store on May 29 and handed her an EBT card while trying to purchase two packs of cigarettes.
It's important to note that there are two types of EBT cards: one is for essential grocery items and the other can be used for pretty much anything. The customer had the latter.
Whiton told the customer that EBT cards shouldn't be used to purchase luxury items such as cigarettes. Of course, the EBT holder didn't take her refusal lightly and the two "had a little go-around" while the checkout line grew larger.
"I made the statement, 'do you think myself, that lady, and that gentlemen should pay for your cigarettes?' and he responded 'yes.' Then he said, 'Give me back my card.' And I said, 'Give me back my cigarettes,'" Whiton said.
Although the customer left without his cigarettes, that wasn't the end of the story: "The next day Whiton said the customer's foster mother came to the store to complain," the Source reports.
Wait -- a man old enough to buy cigarettes had his mother go talk to the mean lady at the convenience store? He's going to need a lot more than cigarettes to look tough after that.
Either way, the 65-year-old wasn't cowed by the boy's foster mother and told her that EBT card holders shouldn't be buying cigarettes with taxpayer's dollars. Not surprisingly, the store's management wasn't too thrilled with Whiton.
She "received a call later that day from the company's home office in Maine, telling her it had received a complaint about her and reprimanded her," according to the Source.
But Whiton wasn't about to change her mind.
"I said I would bow out gracefully and give my notice because I didn't want to be a part of it. I'm 65 years old, you know?" she said.
That's right. Whiton quit her job rather than sell cigarettes to someone living off an EBT card.
"Charles E. Wilkins, the general manager of the C.N. Brown Co. that runs the stores, said the EBT cards in the cash phase could be used for any items, including alcohol, tobacco and gambling," the Source reports. "Wilkins said the company gave Whiton the option of staying but she said she would not accept the cards anymore."
"She didn't think it was right and just wasn't going to sell to people in that program anymore," Wilkins said.
After she took her stand and gave her notice, she was still expecting another week of work. However, it didn't quite work out that way.
"Whiton said when she came to work the next day, her manager asked her how much notice she was giving. When she responded 'a week,' she was told the home office had just called and fired her," the Source report.
Wilkins says that had they given her one more week, she would have had to accept the cards.
"Company policy is to follow rules and regulations, and the sale of cigarettes to EBT card-holders is legal. She didn't wish to follow company policy, so she was let go after four years," a company spokesman said, according to the Boston Herald.
Whiton said that she doesn't have a problem with a program that helps low-income people buy groceries. She just doesn't think people should be using taxpayer dollars to buy cigarettes.
"They can't even buy toilet paper with the EBT grocery cards but they can buy beer and cigarettes with the EBT cash cards," Whiton said, "Go figure."
Whiton is not currently looking for work, according to the Source."
is this the manager of the redsox? they stink, and should not be allowed to vote either.
Carmine said:
"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."
Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha!
More nonsense coming from my little buddy Carmine.
Actually, Woodrow Wilson needs NO defense. His legislative record & leadership speaks for itself.
Wilson wasn't perfect but who is? You????
Mitt Romney??? Ha! Ha! Ha!
Yes, Wilson was a progressive on MOST things. He was not a progressive when it came to race relations, however, but that's not surprising considering the fact that he was born and raised as a southerner in the years immediately after the Civil War...
Actually, Wilson & Teddy Roosevelt agreed on many things and their political ideology wasn't that far apart....
TR, like Wilson, was also a progressive and like Wilson, TR had a "hang-up" or two when it came to some immigrants.
For example, TR was very much in favor of limiting the number of Asian's (mainly Chinese) that should be allowed to enter the country each year...
He came to fear the fact that millions of Chinese were coming to the US to live. He felt that the future of the US as a WASP nation was in doubt..
Wilson came to represent (in the minds of most Europeans..) what this country was all about...what was good, what should be copied and used in Europe.
His Fourteen Points were accepted through out Europe and when he went to Europe for the 1919 Paris Peace Conference, he was welcomed by the French as a "conquering hero."
Huge crowds gathered where ever he went and people believed what Wilson said when he talked about a "world made safe for democracy"........and the "war to end all wars."
The fact that the GOP controlled Senate blocked our entry into the League of Nations (we never joined...) was a factor in events that led to World War II....
Wilson's insistence that the Allies re-draw the map of Europe was a double edged sword that historians still debate...
Eleven new countries were created at the Paris Peace Conference and the re-drawing of the physical map of Europe gave millions and millions of minorities a chance for freedom & self determination for the first time...
His attempt at home to put in place a federal banking system did go far enough, but it became the fore runner to our present Federal Reserve System.
Yep, Wilson was just what this country needed at that point in time.....
Correction....
"His attempt at home to put in place a federal banking system did "NOT" go far enough, but it became the fore runner to our present Federal Reserve System.
Carmine said:
"Lest I foget the biggest land mine of all: Clint Eastwood. It's half time and we're coming back.."
Ha1 Ha! Ha! Ha!
Carmine is still on board the Titanic! Despite the fact that it's rapidly sinking, Carmine believes that by re-organizing the deck chairs the ship (campaign) will be saved..
Clint Eastwood...... a man who actually believes his Hollywood bravado.
Wow! How sad is that?.
Clint, a man who refuses to take his own advice.."a man must know his limitations."
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
Very well expressed Ramon!
Great idea...and it follows that all people who do not build houses shall sleep outside, all who do not build cars shall walk or take a bike, all who do not design computers shall not read email, all who do not do laundry go naked, all who can not speak English in America shall not speak, and all who do not make fresh air and produce food shall not breathe or eat.
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.
"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
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
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.
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.
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
Carmine.
Shut up and sit down old timer.
You, me, and everyone here have no "right" to post here.
We are extended this courtesy by the LasVegasSun.com website because they have decided it makes their presence in the community more valuable.
You have the right to go out on your sidewalk and let your neighbors know how weird your views are.
Sit down
Carmine,Listen to Jeff.
<<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.
<<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".
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.
Comment removed by moderator. Personal Attack
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.
Sick of some of you:
I think Wendor was getting ready to ask you out on a date until he realized how much more "valuable" his adoration of Mitts money is.
John Wayne:
That was weird, at least you're sort of on the right side, I think..
For every thought spoken, 100 people think the same way but do not speak until it is safe....
Comment removed by moderator. Personal Attack
Comment removed by moderator. Personal Attack
Anyone who has either never contributed, in the form of taxes, to the US government, or taken in Entitlements more than they have paid in taxes should not be allowed to vote. Why should we work 10 hour days so that a bunch of losers can just be bribed for their votes by a President who will take money from people who actually worked for it and give it to people who did NOTHING.