Comments by gaetani
Posted on March 18 at 9:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I don't know why there are conceal carry permits at all. If everyone was allowed to open carry, there would no problems like we have now. justapo, you had better reread the 2nd Amendment and then go read why it is in the Bill of Rights. The reason it is there is at the time there was no standing army or marines. In order to ensure that our nation and the individual sovereign states remained sovereign, everyone needed to be able to own arms and be trained on their use. Now you might be thinking, so now we have a standing army and marines why do we need this amendment. Well, I will tell you. Our Constitution and country is based on these basic principles. That all citizens in this nation are sovereign individuals and all of the states are sovereign. Therefore, we need the right to bear arms to protect our sovereignty. Plain and simple.
Posted on February 8 at 8:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Linda Neil, there you global warming people go again! When confronted with the facts about it, you have to deny them and come up with some innocuous supposed facts that do not refute the arguments against you and don't even support your own position. Just because carbon dioxide has increased over the last 55 years doesn't mean that it is caused by human's use of carbon based fuels. Do you know what the historical levels of carbon dioxide have been throughout the billions of years history of the planet? I have done some research and what the levels are now are not high by historical standards. There really isn't any global warming. Many scientists and climatologists. many of whom were once global warming supporters, now say there isn't a man made created global warming. Don't you get it? It is just another way for Progressives to take control of our lives.
That being said, I do care about pollution and I have been a proponent of alternative energy sources for 35 years. Solar energy has been around for more than 50 years but the technology hasn't advanced too far. Wind energy cannot be used to generate large amounts of energy. What can be done for both solar and wind is for each person to generate their own energy for their personal use.
Have you ever heard of Nicolai Tesla? He was the genius who invented AC electricity and the radio among other things that we take for granted today. He spent most of his life trying to figure out a way to generate power from the atmosphere - induction. I heard recently that someone has figured out a way to do that. It will be used to power you appliances, light fixtures, and electronics devices. Now how is that for reducing pollution and carbon dioxide.
Posted on February 8 at 8:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Newsworthy, typical of a progressive who wants the government to control their life. Insult me and offer no facts to back up your point. I have provided research of two highly regarded scholars of economics. What do research of people with credentials do you have? Just as I thought, NADA!
I for the life of me don't understand why people like you want the give up your liberty to the government to control every aspect of your lives. Get your head out of the sand and wake up!
Posted on February 3 at 1:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Bravo! Bravo! Paul and FrankLowe!
Posted on January 11 at 12:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Mr. Sator is forgetting one big thing. If no one has guns, the government won't need those weapons of mass destruction to round us up. Another thing that he is forgetting is I doubt the government would want to incur such destruction in the country just to take some people out who disagree with it. I will have more on this topic in the print version of The Gazette.
Posted on November 21 at 10:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I am not going to argue with your numbers although I would like to know where you got how much taxes the top 400 earners paid. The problems with you tax the rich people are many. Chief among them is envy, one of the seven deadly sins. Who cares how much anybody makes for a living? Do these people somehow harm you? Do they take food out of your mouth? Do they take clothes off of your back? Do they prevent you from living in a place out of the elements? I think the answers to all of these questions are no.
So, what gives you the right to ask them to give up more of their hard-earned money to government? It is not a privilege to earn more money than someone else. It is the abilities of those people that causes them to make more money. Let me explain somethings to you. Your data shows that the top 400 earners paid an average tax rate of 16.6 percent of gross income but that is not what everyone is taxed on. We are all taxed on taxable income. There are nearly 50 percent of Americans that do not pay federal income taxes. There is not enough money made by the top 5 percent to cover all of the money that you and your ilk want to spend. This nation spends more money per student than any nation in the world. It is not money that is needed to improve education. And taxation is not meant to be used to improve one's standard of living. That is just plain ludicrous!
You can not improve someone else's standard of living by taking money from someone else by taxing them. It doesn't work and never will. That is because the only way to improve one's standard of living is to do it yourself by getting a raise, a promotion, a better paying job, starting your own business that nets more money, etc.. Those that rely on others for their livelihood will never amount to anything. They will become lazy and bored and lose their ambition.
One other comment. Your example of the person who nets $3,000 a month in which you speculate that his income taxes are $6,000 and that amounts to 100% is just plain stupid. First of all, you start out with his net monthly pay so his income taxes were all ready taken out of his pay. Second, a $6,000 income tax doesn't equate to 100% tax rate because he nets $3,000 a month which is $36,000 a year. I already explained that net means taxes were taken out but lets for arguments sake use the $36,000 as taxable income, that would make the person's tax rate only 16.7 percent. Hey, guess what? That is just about the same as your mythical top 400 earner.
Posted on November 19 at 12:07 a.m. (Suggest removal)
As a candidate for State Comptroller in 2010, I was opposed to then candidate for governor Cuomo's tax cap proposal for the very reasons that you have written in your editorial. I know first hand how the tax cap is a false promise from an ignorant politician who has no clue how a local government works. The Legislature is complicit in this charade because they refuse to reduce the mandated burdens that they have passed down to local governments. But they are not alone. The State Comptroller Thomas DiNapoli is also very much at fault in this situation. Being that he is the sole trustee of the Public Employees Pension System his mismanagement of that system has created the most significant burden on local governments of all the mandates. He continually raises the amount that local governments have to contribute for their employees' pensions annually. Since he took over the office in 2007, he has told the local governments to contribute an additional 8%, 12%, 16%, 18%, and now 20%. His excuse has been that the 2008 stock market downturn is the culprit. But the stock market had gained until recently almost all of its losses since 2008. What this means is his mismanagement of the investments made for the pension fund have been very poor and that his assumptions for the necessary rate of return were wrong.
Mr. DiNapoli does not have a finance background which is a big part of his problem. But a finance background hasn't been a big plus for past Comptrollers either. Former Comptroller Carl McCall has a finance background but he set all of this mess into motion back in the late 90's when during the tech stock bubble boom on the stock market, he told government employers that they did not have to contribute to the pension fund for several years because the fund was in great shape. Government employers are still paying for that grave mistake. Unfortunately, Mr. DiNapoli has two more years left on his current term in office. We can look forward to higher pension contributions for local governments until he leaves office.
What I proposed when I ran for Comptroller was that an independent board of trustees be created to oversee the pension fund investments. This board would be made up of parties that have an interest in the fund. That is employees, employers, and tax payers not patronage appointees. One public sector union - PEF - did not like this idea when they interviewed me for a possible endorsement. They will reap what they sow.
Until the mandates are eliminated, the local tax burden will continue to rise. We need to pressure the Governor and the Legislature to relieve this burden. Your newspaper could be a great help by calling for action.
John A. Gaetani
49 Cedar Ln
Posted on November 7 at 10:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Richard Moody Jr., I don't understand why so many people still believe in man-made climate change (global warming). It has been debunked and proven to be just a political idea. There is a highly respected meteorologist named Joe Bastardi who used to work for Accuweather but now works for WeatherBell Analytics LLC as a Chief Forecaster. He also worked at Penn State where a lot of this global warming fallacy was generated.
He says that Hurricane Sandy was a result of the Atlantic Ocean being warm like it was in the 1950's when there were far many more Atlantic east coast storms than today. He asserts that the world was likely warmer in the 1930s than today, that human contribution of carbon dioxide is too small to have any effect, and warming is caused by sun spots and exchange with warmer oceans. Bastardi has also argued that carbon dioxide cannot cause global warming, because this would violate the first law of thermodynamics. He expects that over the next 30 years, the global average temperature will return to levels seen in the late-1970s due to a so-called "triple-crown of cooling" comprising oceanic temperature cycles, solar radiation cycles, and volcanism.
As as 53 year old who grew up in the 60's and 70's, I remember those years as cold and snowy in the winters and cool in the summer. Back then they were talking about another ice age because of pollution. Then it was changed to warming and now it is just called climate change because they neither cooling or heating has taken place. There hasn't been any so-called warming in 16 years. You should all realize that the earth is a living planet. There are volcanoes (both above ground and under the sea) and earthquakes. In fact, the Japan earthquake shifted that island country and move the earth's axis. What I am trying to say is the earth's climate is not constant and is affected by many things, the least of which is man-kind.
Posted on November 5 at 1:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Richard Alvarez: You had better learn your history. President Hoover believed in Keynesian economics and as such increased government spending to levels unseen before for any peace time period after the 1929 stock market crash. That was the primary reason the economy did not recover and sent the nation into a depression. President Franklin Roosevelt actually ran against all of that spending but when he got elected he doubled down on the government spending. Can you say LIAR! That only prolonged the Great Depression, which wouldn't have been "great" at all if the government didn't spend so much.
Merrie Wardell: You don't think that Social Security and Medicare are going bankrupt because you are getting yours and to hell with those younger than you. Can you say selfish? And let me get this straight, despite the fact that all of your working life you paid Medicare taxes on your wages, you still have to pay a Medicare premium out of your Social Security check. Why do you think that is? And guess what? With Obamacare, your Medicare Advantage coverage is going to be gone.
Social Security is unsustainable in its present form because it wasn't properly funded and the people put in is not invested in anything so it can earn interest and dividends like a regular pension is. That is how a pension grows but Social Security relies on more people paying in more money so those that are collecting it can get paid. Eventually, there will not be enough people paying enough money into the system to sustain it unless there is a huge population growth and more people working. With so many people out of work now and for the last two years those working have paid 2% less in contributions, the Social Security fund is in precarious financial position.
Posted on November 5 at 1:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Please tell me where in our Constitution is says that the government and by extension the people, are responsible for any social safety nets. I know that you will not find it anywhere. Don't get me wrong. As a Roman Catholic, I believe in helping those who are less fortunate than me or have been hit by a hardship. But I would much rather give them money or food or clothing or even better than all of those, training for them so they can do the things they need to do to become self-sufficient. And after they help themselves, they can then help others who need help.
Let me tell you a story. I was in a grocery store yesterday in line to check out. In front of me were three people. It looked like a husband and wife and their female friend. They looked like any average American. Their clothes were typical clothing of anyone, you know not rags or something you might think of as a stereotypical person on welfare. But the friend had an EBT card. She was also going to give the man money for her share of the groceries. He declined so she offered her EBT card. He declined saying he would have to give her money for it. He then asked her when the card gets replenished. She said the 2nd of each month. As I watched him I could see his mind churning and then he said, that was two days ago. Then he asked it is empty now? The friend said oh yes, I spent all the funds but I can spread out the food for the month. The man then told her that last year he and his wife got $138 in food stamps and that they only paid $4.06 for groceries out of pocket. That was because they utilized a food bank. The friend said that she used to use food banks too and mentioned she offered someone (I think her daughter) the used of her car to go to the food bank but the person never goes. I was amazed that this woman had a good amount of money on her to give to her friends for her share of groceries. What I came away with was that this is what President Obama has reduced our nation to. A dependency society instead of what we used to be - self-reliant.
I am going to tell you something that you may not understand. The more the government gives to people, the more they will expect. And when the government can't afford to give people any more and start to cut back, the people will be very unhappy. If you don't believe me just take a look at what is going on in Greece, Italy, Portugal, and Spain to name a few places.