Obama is the winner at South Street E...

Obama is the winner at South Street Elementary - Sentinel & Ent...

There are 69 comments on the Sentinel & Enterprise story from Oct 31, 2008, titled Obama is the winner at South Street Elementary - Sentinel & Ent.... In it, Sentinel & Enterprise reports that:

U.S. Sen. Barack Obama would be America's next president -- by a landslide -- if students at South Street Elementary School were deciding the election.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Sentinel & Enterprise.

NotAgain

Worcester, MA

#42 Nov 3, 2008
Hawk wrote:
This is one of those "problems" that actually has a solution, a very smart and nonpartisan solution that would be simple to implement and would eliminate a lot of unnecessary labor. Rick Hasen asks for America to nationalize voter registration.
The solution is to take the job of voter registration for federal elections out of the hands of third parties (and out of the hands of the counties and states) and give it to the federal government. The Constitution grants Congress wide authority over congressional elections. The next president should propose legislation to have the Census Bureau, when it conducts the 2010 census, also register all eligible voters who wish to be registered for future federal elections. High-school seniors could be signed up as well so that they would be registered to vote on their 18th birthday. When people submit change-of-address cards to the post office, election officials would also change their registration information.
This change would eliminate most voter registration fraud. Government employees would not have an incentive to pad registration lists with additional people in order to keep their jobs. The system would also eliminate the need for matches between state databases, a problem that has proved so troublesome because of the bad quality of the data. The federal government could assign each person a unique voter-identification number, which would remain the same regardless of where the voter moves. The unique ID would prevent people from voting in two jurisdictions, such as snowbirds who might be tempted to vote in Florida and New York. States would not have to use the system for their state and local elections, but most would choose to do so because of the cost savings.
There's something in this for both Democrats and Republicans. Democrats talk about wanting to expand the franchise, and there's no better way to do it than the way most mature democracies do it: by having the government register voters. For Republicans serious about ballot integrity, this should be a winner as well. No more ACORN registration drives, and no more concerns about Democratic secretaries of state not aggressively matching voters enough to motor vehicle databases.
Finally, universal voter registration is good for the country, not only because it will make it easier for those who wish to vote to do so, but because it should end controversy over ballot integrity that threatens to undermine the legitimacy of our election process. If President McCain or Obama makes this a priority, we can have the system ready in time for the president's re-election.
Of course, Republicans aren't serious about ballot integrity, and their opposition to this would prove it. They just want something to carp about and undermine confidence in elections. In addition, there's a credible concern, given how the current government has politicized the Department of Justice and the General Services Administration, that giving over voter registration to them might have dangerous consequences.
But of course, there are Republican Secretaries of State doing that politicization right now. And wouldn't it be nice to create an election system where people don't have to turn in a form or remember to vote at an old precinct if they missed the cutoff, a system designed to make voting easier instead of harder?
This is but one possible innovation in elections (like expanding early voting access, making Election Day a weekend or a holiday, instant runoff voting, a mandate for paper ballots, abolishing the Electoral College, etc., etc.), but it certainly would help to defuse this massive hissy fit we hear every four years like clockwork. I'd love to see Republicans oppose the concept of registering every American to vote.
Digby
Or, we could just mark the thumb of each voter with purple ink on election day.
Stamos

Plainville, CT

#43 Nov 3, 2008
Hawk wrote:
This is one of those "problems" that actually has a solution, a very smart and nonpartisan solution that would be simple to implement and would eliminate a lot of unnecessary labor. Rick Hasen asks for America to nationalize voter registration.
The solution is to take the job of voter registration for federal elections out of the hands of third parties (and out of the hands of the counties and states) and give it to the federal government. The Constitution grants Congress wide authority over congressional elections. The next president should propose legislation to have the Census Bureau, when it conducts the 2010 census, also register all eligible voters who wish to be registered for future federal elections. High-school seniors could be signed up as well so that they would be registered to vote on their 18th birthday. When people submit change-of-address cards to the post office, election officials would also change their registration information.
This change would eliminate most voter registration fraud. Government employees would not have an incentive to pad registration lists with additional people in order to keep their jobs. The system would also eliminate the need for matches between state databases, a problem that has proved so troublesome because of the bad quality of the data. The federal government could assign each person a unique voter-identification number, which would remain the same regardless of where the voter moves. The unique ID would prevent people from voting in two jurisdictions, such as snowbirds who might be tempted to vote in Florida and New York. States would not have to use the system for their state and local elections, but most would choose to do so because of the cost savings.
There's something in this for both Democrats and Republicans. Democrats talk about wanting to expand the franchise, and there's no better way to do it than the way most mature democracies do it: by having the government register voters. For Republicans serious about ballot integrity, this should be a winner as well. No more ACORN registration drives, and no more concerns about Democratic secretaries of state not aggressively matching voters enough to motor vehicle databases.
Finally, universal voter registration is good for the country, not only because it will make it easier for those who wish to vote to do so, but because it should end controversy over ballot integrity that threatens to undermine the legitimacy of our election process. If President McCain or Obama makes this a priority, we can have the system ready in time for the president's re-election.
Of course, Republicans aren't serious about ballot integrity, and their opposition to this would prove it. They just want something to carp about and undermine confidence in elections. In addition, there's a credible concern, given how the current government has politicized the Department of Justice and the General Services Administration, that giving over voter registration to them might have dangerous consequences.
But of course, there are Republican Secretaries of State doing that politicization right now. And wouldn't it be nice to create an election system where people don't have to turn in a form or remember to vote at an old precinct if they missed the cutoff, a system designed to make voting easier instead of harder?
This is but one possible innovation in elections (like expanding early voting access, making Election Day a weekend or a holiday, instant runoff voting, a mandate for paper ballots, abolishing the Electoral College, etc., etc.), but it certainly would help to defuse this massive hissy fit we hear every four years like clockwork. I'd love to see Republicans oppose the concept of registering every American to vote.
Digby
Amen...Or, we could just mark the thumb of each voter with purple ink on election day.
What

Berlin, MA

#45 Nov 3, 2008
Wait until the Democrats get a hold of your 401(k):
http://www.workforce.com/section/00/article/2...

George Miller proposes socializing 401(k)s:
http://www.americanshareholders.org/2008/10/g...

Committee Hearing:
http://edlabor.house.gov/hearings/fc-2008-10-...

Google: nationalizing 401k
http://www.google.com/search...
A Few Bricks Short

Lowell, MA

#47 Nov 4, 2008
OMG wrote:
<quoted text>
So you taught your child that if forced to choose between stealing and starving, she should let herself die?
Parenting FAIL
You have to be one of the biggest idiots I've seen in a long time. Forced to choose between stealing and starving? For gods sake, with all the resources out there to feed the indigent, there is no need to steal for ANY reason.What I was trying to teach the kid is RIGHT from WRONG, which you don't seem to have a handle on. The teacher in question was clouding the issue, that is a big problem with much of the youth today, they no longer seem capable of telling right from wrong, and that is one of a parents biggest duties. Besides, if you were to ask the manager of a store for a helping hand, you might just get more than you need, surely more than you would get STEALING. Your thinking is part of the problem we have today.
Fed Up

Lowell, MA

#48 Nov 4, 2008
PartyLines wrote:
<quoted text>
When I was a kid, they called that sharing. Is that a bad thing?
Well, I don't know how it was done where you came from, but if I wanted to let someone else play with my stuff, it was sharing. If someone else TOOK my stuff without my permission, it was, and I do believe still is, considered THEFT.

Since: Jun 08

Location hidden

#49 Nov 4, 2008
Hawk wrote:
The next president should propose legislation to have the Census Bureau, when it conducts the 2010 census, also register all eligible voters who wish to be registered for future federal elections. High-school seniors could be signed up as well so that they would be registered to vote on their 18th birthday. When people submit change-of-address cards to the post office, election officials would also change their registration information.
This change would eliminate most voter registration fraud. Government employees would not have an incentive to pad registration lists with additional people in order to keep their jobs. The system would also eliminate the need for matches between state databases, a problem that has proved so troublesome because of the bad quality of the data. The federal government could assign each person a unique voter-identification number, which would remain the same regardless of where the voter moves. The unique ID would prevent people from voting in two jurisdictions, such as snowbirds who might be tempted to vote in Florida and New York. States would not have to use the system for their state and local elections, but most would choose to do so because of the cost savings.
There's something in this for both Democrats and Republicans. Democrats talk about wanting to expand the franchise, and there's no better way to do it than the way most mature democracies do it: by having the government register voters. For Republicans serious about ballot integrity, this should be a winner as well. No more ACORN registration drives, and no more concerns about Democratic secretaries of state not aggressively matching voters enough to motor vehicle databases.
Finally, universal voter registration is good for the country, not only because it will make it easier for those who wish to vote to do so, but because it should end controversy over ballot integrity that threatens to undermine the legitimacy of our election process. If President McCain or Obama makes this a priority, we can have the system ready in time for the president's re-election.
Of course, Republicans aren't serious about ballot integrity, and their opposition to this would prove it. They just want something to carp about and undermine confidence in elections. In addition, there's a credible concern, given how the current government has politicized the Department of Justice and the General Services Administration, that giving over voter registration to them might have dangerous consequences.
But of course, there are Republican Secretaries of State doing that politicization right now. And wouldn't it be nice to create an election system where people don't have to turn in a form or remember to vote at an old precinct if they missed the cutoff, a system designed to make voting easier instead of harder?
This is but one possible innovation in elections (like expanding early voting access, making Election Day a weekend or a holiday, instant runoff voting, a mandate for paper ballots, abolishing the Electoral College, etc., etc.), but it certainly would help to defuse this massive hissy fit we hear every four years like clockwork. I'd love to see Republicans oppose the concept of registering every American to vote.
Digby
Hi Hawk,
I cannot speak for all Republicans, but I would LOVE to see these things come into being to standardize and marginalize the obvious fraudulent things that will happen during this election as well as previous elections. I would especially like to see the electoral college die off and be replaced by true voting, this process has not served us well and we have the technology to make the electoral college a thing of the past.
I'm not certain why it is thought that Republicans don't want people voting, but as for one Republican, I WOULD SUPPORT THESE THINGS READILY!!
Hawk

Brooklyn, NY

#50 Nov 4, 2008
Leom Res wrote:
<quoted text>
This assumes everyone pays the same rate. Completely useless example. Are you trying to trick people, Hawk?
Only to identify the difference between earnings levels and what is left to work with, attach progressive %'s and you have a clearer picture.
Leom Res

Clinton, MA

#51 Nov 4, 2008
Hawk wrote:
make it real easy for them...
Family of 4
Gross 30K, 28%=8.4K, 21.6K left.
Gross 50K, 28%=14K, 36K left.
Gross 95K, 28%=26.6K, 68.4K left.
Does the 95K earner struggle if he pays 30K which leaves him still 64.4K to live on? No I wouldn't.
Would that 4K be helpful to the family of 4 trying to make ends meet on 21K (impossible mind you in todays world), giving them 25K?
What about all the social services these lower income families are already getting, like someone else mentioned? Welfare, free childcare, free lunch at school, free bussing, sunsidized housing, subsidized heating, etc. And if a family of 4 is living on 30K a year, someone needs to get another job. 2 parents working full time and only earning 30K means they are earning $7 an hour each. Minimum wage is $8/hr. If these 2 parents only had the earning potential to make minimum wage their whole life, they should not have had kids for the rest of us to raise. Accountability is seriously lacking in this country.

Since: Jun 08

Location hidden

#52 Nov 4, 2008
Leom Res wrote:
<quoted text>
What about all the social services these lower income families are already getting, like someone else mentioned? Welfare, free childcare, free lunch at school, free bussing, sunsidized housing, subsidized heating, etc. And if a family of 4 is living on 30K a year, someone needs to get another job. 2 parents working full time and only earning 30K means they are earning $7 an hour each. Minimum wage is $8/hr. If these 2 parents only had the earning potential to make minimum wage their whole life, they should not have had kids for the rest of us to raise. Accountability is seriously lacking in this country.
Hi Leom Res,
I agree that accountability is very much lacking and is causing ALL KINDS of problems for us. You may find several people responding very nastily in response to your statement regarding people not having children unless they can afford them. Some will say that is an infringements on their rights.
Hawk

Brooklyn, NY

#53 Nov 4, 2008
Leom Res wrote:
<quoted text>
What about all the social services these lower income families are already getting, like someone else mentioned? Welfare, free childcare, free lunch at school, free bussing, sunsidized housing, subsidized heating, etc. And if a family of 4 is living on 30K a year, someone needs to get another job. 2 parents working full time and only earning 30K means they are earning $7 an hour each. Minimum wage is $8/hr. If these 2 parents only had the earning potential to make minimum wage their whole life, they should not have had kids for the rest of us to raise. Accountability is seriously lacking in this country.
Spoken like a true ****!

Not all jobs are the same, not all earning potential the same. For example, Car Salesman, with commish and the rest, no sales (I.E. Today)= below Min wage in real gross earnings. Job structures are not all the same! Then there is child Care IF both work, ever try that price tag on meathead?

Why don't you qualify all those "handouts" you speak of since they bother you so much. Put the threashholds to the examples and tell me what they are getting for free. POS!
Hawk

Brooklyn, NY

#54 Nov 4, 2008
Go forth and what?

God Bless!
Leom Res

Clinton, MA

#55 Nov 4, 2008
Bruce W Marien wrote:
<quoted text>
Hi Leom Res,
I agree that accountability is very much lacking and is causing ALL KINDS of problems for us. You may find several people responding very nastily in response to your statement regarding people not having children unless they can afford them. Some will say that is an infringements on their rights.
What about the rights of those poor kids that are born into that kind of situation? Of course everyone has the right to have children. I am just saying that you should have them responsibly and without the preconceived notion that everyone else should take of them. Nobody can argue the fact that a couple making only 30K should have known that they and their children would have a tough life. Unless of course the receive tons of social services and a check in the mail every January signed by Barack Obama. Who once said that necessity is the mother of invention? Remove the necessity and you have a viscious circle of stagnation. My opinion only.
Leom Res

Clinton, MA

#56 Nov 4, 2008
Hawk wrote:
<quoted text>
Spoken like a true ****!
Not all jobs are the same, not all earning potential the same. For example, Car Salesman, with commish and the rest, no sales (I.E. Today)= below Min wage in real gross earnings. Job structures are not all the same! Then there is child Care IF both work, ever try that price tag on meathead?
Why don't you qualify all those "handouts" you speak of since they bother you so much. Put the threashholds to the examples and tell me what they are getting for free. POS!
You are missing the point completely. If people put an effort into bettering themselves and their situations, work hard and are motivated, more power to them and I will GLADLY do what I can to help them along-including helping them pay for an education, job retraining, etc. Put my tax dollars to work for these people. But the incentive and motivation to do better is seriously diminished when it becomes easier to be poor or middle class. Hard work should be rewarded, not punished. Nobody gave my grandparents a hand out when they came here with nothing. They worked hard, learned the language, and were very prosperous even in the midst of the Depression. Where is that work ethic today? I look around and it saddens me that so many take advantage of the system instead of using it as a stepping stone. And now this new administration is making it even easier for those folks.

Call me all the names you want. I really don't care. You obviously need a hug.
PartyLines

Princeton, MA

#57 Nov 4, 2008
Fed Up wrote:
<quoted text>Well, I don't know how it was done where you came from, but if I wanted to let someone else play with my stuff, it was sharing. If someone else TOOK my stuff without my permission, it was, and I do believe still is, considered THEFT.
Sometimes, I had to be told to share!

Since: Jun 08

Location hidden

#58 Nov 4, 2008
Leom Res wrote:
<quoted text>
What about the rights of those poor kids that are born into that kind of situation? Of course everyone has the right to have children. I am just saying that you should have them responsibly and without the preconceived notion that everyone else should take of them. Nobody can argue the fact that a couple making only 30K should have known that they and their children would have a tough life. Unless of course the receive tons of social services and a check in the mail every January signed by Barack Obama. Who once said that necessity is the mother of invention? Remove the necessity and you have a viscious circle of stagnation. My opinion only.
I agree with your opinion and the fact that people need to be responsible for their own children. I will not ask anyone to take care of my family, that is my responsibility. As you can already see, you've received a response from someone that believes that you and I should give all of our money to someone else, and if we question why we should do that, we are treated with insult and contempt.

Interestingly, I voluntarily help many more people on a yearly basis than most eveyone else I know, and I do that even though I am forced to provide for many that will not provide for themselves. Social Responsibility isn't something that should be forced on people by government or forced socialized programs, it should come from the heart.

Ultimately, people will stop voluntarily giving once government forces us to give to programs that will not have the same value and affect if done voluntarily. You CANNOT legislate selflessness!
Gaetano Pistachio

Lowell, MA

#59 Nov 4, 2008
Bruce:

Aren't you late for this week's varnish job on your coiffure?
Leom Res

Clinton, MA

#60 Nov 4, 2008
Bruce W Marien wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree with your opinion and the fact that people need to be responsible for their own children. I will not ask anyone to take care of my family, that is my responsibility. As you can already see, you've received a response from someone that believes that you and I should give all of our money to someone else, and if we question why we should do that, we are treated with insult and contempt.
Interestingly, I voluntarily help many more people on a yearly basis than most eveyone else I know, and I do that even though I am forced to provide for many that will not provide for themselves. Social Responsibility isn't something that should be forced on people by government or forced socialized programs, it should come from the heart.
Ultimately, people will stop voluntarily giving once government forces us to give to programs that will not have the same value and affect if done voluntarily. You CANNOT legislate selflessness!
Your last thought is exactly my point, although you are much better at writing than I am. You can pave the road to propserity, but people have to be willing to travel on it.
Steen

Westford, MA

#61 Nov 4, 2008
I have to admitt the a "check in the mail" sounds great but i dont need it. I am middle class, I work hard and strive for a promotion. All i really want... is to not see half of my paycheck go to taxes. When i say middle class the reality is Lower-middle class after taxes. Someone who makes $225k more then likely earned it and wasnt handed it on a silver platter. As much as i could use a little something to add to my savings so that someday i could take a vaction or buy a house so my daughter has a yard to play in... i dont want anyone to hand me a check. I want to be able to look at my check and be happy not angry because because i was taxed up the wazoo... I understand the need for taxes adn i am all for being taxed but not to the point where i cant collect half of what i earned in the process. Its not fair. Too bad my perfect world doesnt exsist
Maurice Ronaldo - Mo Ron

Rockville, MD

#62 Nov 4, 2008
Elementary schools voting too? Did ACORN register them too?

When do they vote in Japan?
**** day!
Leom Res

Clinton, MA

#63 Nov 4, 2008
Steen wrote:
I have to admitt the a "check in the mail" sounds great but i dont need it. I am middle class, I work hard and strive for a promotion. All i really want... is to not see half of my paycheck go to taxes. When i say middle class the reality is Lower-middle class after taxes. Someone who makes $225k more then likely earned it and wasnt handed it on a silver platter. As much as i could use a little something to add to my savings so that someday i could take a vaction or buy a house so my daughter has a yard to play in... i dont want anyone to hand me a check. I want to be able to look at my check and be happy not angry because because i was taxed up the wazoo... I understand the need for taxes adn i am all for being taxed but not to the point where i cant collect half of what i earned in the process. Its not fair. Too bad my perfect world doesnt exsist
YOU are exactly the type of person I would HAPPILY help out of an unfortunate situation should you find yourself in one.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Sentinel & Enterprise Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News This show won't be a drag Mar 19 FSU 3
News After running from police, Fitchburg man arrest... Mar 15 Kevin Lyn 1
News Ex-Fitchburg mayor's police job decision took t... Mar 6 Fat Stevie 2
News Family members grieve for accident victims - Se... (Jul '10) Mar 5 Lynne forever broken 22
News Wong: Letter cast doubt on council support for ... Mar 5 Bruno max 4
News Trump's infrastructure plan may hit roadblock: ... Mar 5 Texxy the Indepen... 1
News Wong to DeLeo: City will take slots - Sentinel ... (Jul '10) Feb '17 Twelve angry men 12
More from around the web