Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: bentway who wrote (656798)	5/28/2012 2:09:57 AM
From: i-node	1 Recommendation Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 1578510

>> So, why don't the (R)'s agree to raising taxes on the wealthy? Hmmm? Because when you punish success you get less of it.

To: bentway who wrote (656798)	5/28/2012 9:23:53 AM
From: joseffy	Respond to of 1578510

Confirm the eligibility of all voters -- before they vote St. Paul Pioneer Press ^ \| 05/26/2012 \| Andy Cilek twincities.com Let us bury, once and for all, the unsupported assertions that Minnesota's election system is the best in the nation and there is no evidence of ineligible voting. Consider that on Election Day in 2008, more than 500,000 people walked into polling places, filled out pieces of paper called Voter Registration Applications, and then voted. The state treated these individuals differently from those of you who registered prior to the election. Specifically, your registration information was compared to the Department of Public Safety records indicating you are a citizen and are not a felon with unrestored voting rights. Additionally, your information was checked against court records to confirm that you are not under a guardianship order that has revoked your right to vote. Other checks were also done including confirming your residence in the precinct by sending a post card via the U.S. Post Office to see if it could be delivered to you. In contrast to the process your registration was subjected to, none of those confirmation checks were done on the registrations of the half million Election Day registrants. Yet the votes of those registrants were counted. That fact raises questions like, "How many of those 500,000 voters could not (after the election) be determined to be eligible?" and "How many of those voters have been found to be ineligible?" Sadly, the Secretary of State's office refuses to analyze its data and give the public the answers to those questions. Fortunately, though, private citizen groups have worked to overcome the lack of cooperation from the Secretary of State in order to assess the magnitude of Minnesota's open door for ineligible voting. The tip of the ineligible voting iceberg includes a recent finding by the Minnesota Voters Alliance that more than 48,000 of those half million election day registrants in 2008 have not been confirmed as eligible, even as late as three years later. Minnesota Majority has identified by name more than 1,000 ineligible felons who voted in the 2008 general election. And the Minnesota Freedom Council has uncovered ineligible persons under guardianship in Crow Wing County whom the State permitted to register and vote in 2008. A particularly egregious and illuminating case comes from Harris in 2006. At one polling place, approximately 10 individuals registered on Election Day all using the identical address, that of a laundromat in the same block as the polling place. When election judges challenged the eligibility of those people, the Chisago County Auditor told the judges that there was nothing that could be done to prevent or otherwise segregate the suspicious ballots. That's the law in Minnesota. A person, whether citizen or non-citizen, can walk into a polling place, fill out a form with valid or invalid information including their name, have a registered voter vouch that they live at the stated address, vote, and disappear into the distance. Tracking them down later is nearly impossible, especially if a false name is used. But there is good news by way of the Minnesota Constitution, which says clearly in Article VII, Section 1, that ineligible "persons shall not be entitled or permitted to vote at any election in this state." That plain text means that the state has a constitutional duty to confirm the eligibility of every voter prior to "permitting" him or her to vote. And there is more good news. On Feb. 28, the Minnesota Voters Alliance filed a federal lawsuit asking the court to enforce the Minnesota Constitution by directing the state to confirm the eligibility of Election Day registrants just as it does for early registrants, that is, before counting their ballots. And the best news is that Minnesota can have both election integrity and Election Day registration. Identification information such as name, driver's license number, and address provided by voters who register on Election Day can be immediately confirmed using Internet connections to the state's databases. And for those relatively few situations in which the voter is unable to provide all of the information needed to register at the polling place, provisional ballots can be filled out and counted later after the confirmation is complete. Public confidence in the integrity of our elections will be restored when no person is allowed to vote before his or her eligibility is confirmed. Andy Cilek is president of the Minnesota Voters Alliance, which describes itself as a multi-partisan, nonprofit 501(c)4 tax exempt organization not affiliated with any political party or organization.

To: bentway who wrote (656798)	5/28/2012 10:24:45 AM
From: Wayners	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1578510

Just as in finance, risky investments all have a level of risk, the more risk, a higher rate of return is required. Same thing goes for taxes. People take all kinds of risks to be successful. They spend a hundred thousand dollars to several hundred thousands of dollars on an education and forgo earnings for 10% of their working years to earn that education. They invest their own sweat equity and long hours in a small business and their own money and family and friends money, oftentimes at great risk, and you think the Govt who took no risk should be entitled to the profits if there are any. Notice the Govt doesn't share in losses, only profits. It's clearly unfair and the income tax is a highly unfair tax. People demand and are entitled to a high rate of return on their small businesses because of the risk that was taken and a confiscatory income tax structure that doesn't allow an adequate return for that risk will prevent thousands and thousands of folks from ever starting a small business to begin with. It just doesn't pay and isn't worth the risks and hard work, just as it isn't smart to load a stagecoah full of gold and then travel a known highway with bandits (Govt) who are going to steal your gold. Why ship the gold at all?