Letters to the editor - Thursday (9-6-2012)

  • Posted: Monday, September 10, 2012 12:01 a.m.
    UPDATED: Monday, September 10, 2012 8:21 a.m.

Democrats, Republicans have differing views on wealth
Perhaps, the basic difference between Democrats and Republicans is their respective views on the distribution of the wealth of our society. Neither party takes the most extreme position. It’s more a matter of emphasis but this emphasis matters greatly, as can be seen in the very different positions of President Obama and Mitt Romney.
Republicans tend to favor the view that those who have been highly successful in accumulating wealth should be allowed to keep the bulk of it. Hence they want government policies such as lower taxes and fewer regulations on companies.
Democrats tend toward the view that there are extenuating circumstances, such as individual differences in native ability, luck and parental background, which cause differences in accumulations of wealth, and therefore, the more fortunate have an obligation to help the less fortunate. This view rests on the assumption that society is not a mere collection of individuals, as Republicans would have us believe, but a group of interdependent persons.
Accordingly, Democrats favor programs that increase opportunities and require the more fortunate to contribute more of their wealth than Republicans and their financial backers want.
The most powerful argument in support of the Democratic position is that consumer spending constitutes 70 percent of the economy. The top 2 percent cannot make the economy work by themselves. The 98 percent must have the wherewithal to purchase goods and services. When they are able to do that, companies profit and the whole society benefits. So, if you are among the 98 percent, it would seem to be in your self interest to vote for President Obama and every other Democrat on the ballot.
— Stephanie Derr
Salisbury
When faith, politics collide
I am neither a Mormon nor a Catholic. But there are many Mormons in my extended family. Some of them are really upset with Romney. See http://mormonsforobama.org/ for details. The early entries get very specific in the ways Romney breaks faith with the Book of Mormon.
Maybe Ryan is the perfect veep for Romney after all. “It’s the height of hypocrisy for Rep. Ryan to claim that his approach to the budget is shaped by Catholic teaching and values,” said Fr. John Baumann, S.J., founder of PICO National Network (People Improving Communities through Organizing).
Another writer, Amy Sullivan, says that “...when Paul Ryan first decided to publicly share his admiration of Ayn Rand, he could not have imagined it would lead to him speed-walking to his SUV to avoid a young Catholic trying to give him a Bible and telling him to pay more attention to the Gospel of Luke.” (http://swampland.time.com/2011/06/03/paul-ryans-ayn-rand-problem/)
A faithless Catholic paired with a faithless Mormon?
The world has changed, and the Right is terrified of this election. They scream, spending $100s of millions because they know that they do not speak for the majority of Americans. They do not speak for women, “minorities,” the daily-increasing poor, the out-of-work or those who cannot access medical care.
They rely on us forgetting their publicly stated top priority when Obama won: make him a one-term president. Since the last election, they’ve prevented anything from getting done, punishing America for its choice, keeping America suffering until they get back the power. Don’t remember? It was in all the papers. They were quite clear about it, knowing that many would ignore/forget. The leaders have to keep you from looking at who they really are, what they stand for.
If they spoke for “all of us,” they wouldn’t need to scream so loud.
— Herbert Maier
Salisbury
Take a stand, seek the truth
Last week, Dee Dee Wright accused the Rowan-Salisbury School System, the administration and Board of Education of a denial of due process. In rendering her accusation, she stated she had a collection of documents proving the county educational establishment denied due process to an employee.
Unfortunately, other employees have made the same assertion. Few, however, have chosen to proceed.
Unsubstantiated allegations against both the superintendent and her assistant may injure one professionally. Ms. Wright should, and must, provide the documentation necessary to support her accusation. Particularly of concern is “certain members of the administration are operating above the law.” Her assertion “a packet of information was mailed to me concerning unfairness within the school system” is a powerful declaration that should not be ignored. For our community’s benefit: investigate.
If your documentation supports and proves your allegations, your defense is the truth. The law allows one protection against defamation and slander; consult an attorney for specifics. The same defense may exist if you present the newspapers with evidence. If you have the evidence and don’t pursue this matter, assuming the truth of your assertions, you will provide license for the continuation of the legal violations that cause you concern.
A refusal to take a stand and support your beliefs and convictions would be similar to the general population’s lack of concern and willingness to act in a moment of crisis. Supporting your cause and beliefs represents the attitude necessary for citizens wanting to maintain a democratic society. Should you not take a stand, you will be one of the millions of Americans who will complain without the right to criticize. As Americans we must recognize that we all must be involved in seeking the truth.
— Arthur Steinberg
Salisbury

Commenting is not allowed on this article.