newsobserver.com projects - Individual Taxpayer Identification Number - Comments

Re: Bill would withhold taxes

ryanteaguebeckwith — Sun, 29 Mar 2009 23:11:08 -0400

No, that's freedom of the press. Free speech is a separate clause in the First Amendment.

— RTB

Re: Bill would withhold taxes

j1c2kp — Sun, 29 Mar 2009 21:14:59 -0400

Does freedom of speech only refer to the media that writes infammatory, biased 'news' stories?

Re: Bill would withhold taxes

tangoz — Sat, 28 Mar 2009 22:29:06 -0400

Senator Hoyle should have been in the Obama's administration vetting team?

We are now in the top five of states for the highest unemployment. Maybe it is time for the Democrats to cut programs that are not needed or essential. And give businesses and individuals that actually pay taxes in NC a break. If we have more liquid income we will trickle that back up, LOL.

Re: Bill would withhold taxes

FFC1304 — Sat, 28 Mar 2009 11:57:55 -0400

It would be a great opportunity for Sen. Hoyle to promote the idea of
the FAIRTAX proposal in Congress as a way for NC to become more equitable in tax collections.

www.Fairtax.org

Find the Fairtax group in your neighborhood and JOIN!

Re: Bill would withhold taxes

ryanteaguebeckwith — Sat, 28 Mar 2009 10:11:35 -0400

Comment deleted. I'm fairly sure you were aiming for satire there, but it was just a tad too offensive.

— RTB

Re: A brief history of the N.C. driver's license

ladybug7008 — Sat, 04 Oct 2008 22:40:35 -0400

This has nothing to do with the article. I'm writing a paper for a class, and need to find out when it was made law that a person was to be 16 years old to get a drivers license. Can anyone help me out?

Re: A brief history of the N.C. driver's license

feliduca — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 16:47:42 -0400

I am a NC drivers license holder. I was trapped for 90 in a 60 while
driving in SC. The magistrate stated that I could plead no contest,
the points would not show up on my NC license, and the penalty would
be reduced to 4 points (which did not affect me, he said). 4 points
is 'over 15 mph over but under 25 mph over.' I took this bargain.
That was August of 2002.

The violation never appeared on my NC license, and likewise never
showed up on my NC insurance through any consumer groups of any kind.
I have even changed insurance carriers since then.

I have accepted a full time position in SC starting late January,
2004. I could live in either SC or NC due to the job's location. I
would prefer SC, as the taxes are slightly less, cost of living is
less, etc. However, whether I live in SC or not largely depends on
the situation about the ticket.

My question is whether I will recieve a SC drivers license with the SC
violation on it, even though I was a NC driver when the violation
occured. If so, will the violation be accompanied by the 4 points.
If this is the case, how could that affect my insurance? I plan on
celebrating my employment fresh out of college with an expensive car,
so insurance will already be a little high. I would love for it not
to be higher. How long will the violation be active on my record (I
believe in NC the duration is 3 years)? Would there be a way to
further reduce the penalty before/after I move to SC?

I have searched extensively, but mine seems to be a unique situation
where no one moves to the state where the non-resident violation
occured. Unfortunately, SC has limited information on it's DMV
website. I also have never had any moving violations on my NC
license, so nothing would transfer to SC from NC but a big fat zero.

I think these questions are very closely related, so if you find that
one source, youve made my day! Thanks for any help you can provide!

____________________________
Submited by : Descargar Libros

Re: Claims Dept: Dole on driver's license vote

rbmartin — Sat, 28 Jun 2008 13:13:39 -0400

Using this as an example:

Is the claim true? No. In 2001, Hagan voted to make it harder for illegal immigrants to get licenses, and in 2006 she voted to make it impossible. It's fair to say that Senate Democrats — Hagan included — could have backed stronger standards, but that's not the same thing as voting to "make it easier."

...the first part: "Is the claim true? No. In 2001, Hagan voted to make it harder for illegal immigrants to get licenses, and in 2006 she voted to make it impossible." ...is basically a neutral statement of fact.

The second part: "It's fair to say that Senate Democrats — Hagan included — could have backed stronger standards, but that's not the same thing as voting to "make it easier." ...is not neutral. It is an editorialization wherein the writer is telling readers how to interpret the facts.

As a reader it is my place to decide whether the proffered facts do or do not support the claim in question. One the one hand, Hagan's record at least technically refutes Dole's claim. On the other hand, it is within reason to feel that failing to come out stronger against licensing illegals is tantamount to making it easier for them. A more graphic example would be if Hagan had voted to require illegals to stand on one foot while applying, thereby making it 'harder' to obtain a NC license. Technically correct, but....

I applaud the intent and efforts of the Claim Dept., but ask they restrict themselves to the facts and leave interpretations of the facts out of it. The N&O is so obviously leftist and liberal (read the recent editorial torpedo against Pat McCrory implying he believes Sheriff Andy Taylor is real) that it's created the need to be scrupulously exacting when purporting to be any sort of bipartisan fact-checker. Bias isn't always overt and purposely committed. Bias may be injected merely by being selective about whose and which claims are chosen for review. Also, the biased are typically blinded to their own bias as a requisite of being biased.

Re: Claims Dept: Dole on driver's license vote

uncgop — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 09:54:36 -0400

Ryan:

I fully understand your position as the bearer of good and bad news and your attempts to spur conversation. By no means was my previous post an attack on you, I was merely stating that I recognize where the anger is coming from.

Let me be clear

ryanteaguebeckwith — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 09:31:53 -0400

I think you're misunderstanding the point of the fact-check.

I'm not defending the 2001 measure or attacking it. Whether or not the bill went far enough or too far is a political decision that readers — and eventually voters — can decide.

But the taxpayer ID number provision was more of a requirement than the state had before. (Again, whether taxpayer ID numbers should be used, etc., etc., is for you guys to debate.)

The Claims Dept. item simply states that the measure did not, in fact, make it easier for illegal immigrants to get licenses than it was before.

You are free to argue that it did not make it tough enough, had ulterior political motives, dodged the real issue, ad infinitum.

But as a U.S. senator once said, "We are all entitled to our own opinions. None of us are entitled to our own facts."

— RTB

E-mail from Hagan's campaign

ryanteaguebeckwith — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 09:21:00 -0400

For the record, I've only received one e-mail from the Hagan campaign on her immigration record.

From press secretary Dave Hoffman on June 2 (quoted here):

2006: Hagan Voted For A Bill To Prevent Illegal Immigrants From Obtaining Drivers’ Licenses. In July 2006, the Associated Press reported that the North Carolina General Assembly had adopted a provision that would require all applicants for a driver’s license present proof of legal presence through either a Social Security number or a valid visa issued by the Department of Homeland Security. An Individual Taxpayer Identification Number issued by the IRS would no longer be considered a valid form of identification. The provision was included in a larger bill addressing other technical changes to the General Statutes as recommended by the General Statutes Commission. [Raleigh Associated Press, 7/27/06; SB 602, Vote 1585, 7/26/06, passed 41-6]

2007: Budget Included Immigration Training For Sheriffs. In 2007, the North Carolina State budget included $750,000 to train sheriffs’ offices on illegal immigration. [Asheville Citizen-Times, 8/1/07]

2007: Hagan Voted To Study Immigrants’ Impact. In 2007, Hagan voted to study the impacts of illegal immigrants on the state’s health care, education, social services and criminal justice systems, as well as the state’s economy. [S 1256, Vote 1219, 8/1/07]

Note that he does not mention the 2001 bill.

— RTB

Re: Claims Dept: Dole on driver's license vote

ryanteaguebeckwith — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 09:14:59 -0400

The point of a fact-check is to make a determination. Trust me, it's the least pleasant part of this job. Anyway, I wrote an equally strong fact-check on Hagan's claim on unfunded mandates, but apparently that doesn't count with you guys.

— RTB

Re: Claims Dept: Dole on driver's license vote

uncgop — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 09:08:52 -0400

I have just been watching this conversation heat up and so I wanted to throw my two cents in the ring. First of all, because you are on facebook in someone's group, does not mean you are there to support them. I am apart of Obama's website and facebook, but that is because I like to know what pandering they are disiminating on a particular day.

That quote right there makes it clear that there is a little partiality. Present the facts and let the public decide. When it all is said and done, Hagan simply did not take a leadership role and back tougher requirements, if she truly felt them necessary. Further supporting the anger towards RTB, because she is just a pawn with no backbone.

Re: Ryan- Don't be the Hagan Spin Machine's Schill do some homew

John_Burns — Sun, 22 Jun 2008 18:09:43 -0400

Yeah, good thing we decided to do something about all those Hispanic hijackers on 9-11...

psst... that's sarcasm, if "your" concerned about it.

Dome's Facebook profile

ryanteaguebeckwith — Sun, 22 Jun 2008 10:52:49 -0400

Dome has a longtime policy of friending anyone who asks us on Facebook. We also join any N.C.-related political group we see on the social networking site.

It would be a mistake to try to guess our political leanings from what has been an essentially random process.

Anyway, if you look closer, you'll see that we're listed as fans of both McCrory and Perdue, Hagan and Dole, etc. etc.

— RTB