In response to “Rucho unapologetic over controversial tweet” (Dec. 17) and “Does GOP back Rucho?” (O-pinion, Dec. 16):
Rucho is an embarrassment, should apologize for tweet
So, if I am critical of Sen. Rucho’s remarks equating the Affordable Care Act to “... Nazi’s, Soviets and terrorists combined,” I am one of the “socialist elite.” Interesting response, considering that one implicit goal of socialism is the elimination of an elite stratum in society.
Then, in response to a call from the N.C. Republican party chairman to apologize, Rucho refuses on the grounds that “... I don’t owe him and he doesn’t owe me.” I guess it wouldn’t do to apologize just because you’re wrong. This man is an embarrassment to our city, county and state on a number of levels, and should be rejected by voters when he next runs for office.
Tweet not really offensive if you look at what Senator said
I’m not saying what Sen. Rucho said was right or wrong, but what I do say is that the senator’s tweet being “highly offensive” is not really offensive when you look at exactly what the senator said. He compared the resulting damage of Justice Roberts’ actions and that of Obamacare to having “done more damage to the USA then the swords of the Nazis, Soviets & terrorists combined.” Nowhere did the senator actually “compare the Affordable Care Act with Nazis and terrorists” as you so stated.
Putting words in people’s mouths and twisting the truth does nothing more than fuel the fire for an already sensitive situation.
Seems like Rucho is confused about government philosophies
North Carolina State Senator Bob Rucho has compared the Affordable Care Act to policies of Nazi Soviet Socialism or, was it, Soviet Socialism Nazism?
Apparently Mr. Rucho is unaware that Nazism and Soviet Socialism are mutually exclusive philosophies of government.
In response to “Overcoming hurdles of affordable housing” (Dec. 17, Our View) and “Neighbors protest apartments, traffic” (Dec. 17):
Let’s remember – affordable housing is workforce housing
The writer is Board Chair of Community Link.
Do you think working individuals and veterans in service occupations, health care, education and care for the young and elderly should be able to afford safe and decent housing? That’s who we are talking about when affordable housing is the issue. Really, it’s workforce housing!
In our region, a working household must earn at least $15.60 an hour to not spend more than 30 percent of their income on housing, the definition of affordable. The startling reality is that nearly 1 out of 2 workers in our community do not earn this.
So as we debate traffic patterns and the “elements” that affordable housing brings, let’s start the conversation by acknowledging that it’s our workforce that is at stake.
Timothy M. Tate
Affordable housing complex marginalizes homeowners
I am a property owner at Willowmere who is protesting an affordable housing apartment complex nearby. Willowmere has a HOA to maintain its property values. There is a common interest in keeping the neighborhood safe and the property values up. These are hard working people who have pride in home ownership. There is an old saying “nobody washes a rental car.”
When the wishes of this community are superimposed by the whims of county government, that is not democracy. To marginalize the achievement and pride of the homeowners in Willowmere is a mockery.
Are police officers, teachers beneath housing opponents?
Police officers who are good enough to protect and serve. Teachers good enough to be with your children each day. Retail clerks good enough to sell you designer shoes and purses. Yet none is good enough to live in your neighborhood? How do you explain that to your children? Or your minister? Or to yourself?
Problem with Obamacare is not the annual premium increase
Why does the Observer print letters that so clearly miss the point on why people are unhappy with Obamacare?
The issue is not the usual annual premium increase. It is the cancellation of policies the president promised we could keep. It is the incredibly high premiums for new policies (in my case 430 percent higher). It is high deductibles and unneeded coverages of these plans. It is the inequities in who qualifies for subsidies.
In response to “Board: Fracking data is needed” (Dec. 7) and “We shouldn’t be in the dark when it comes to fracking” (Dec. 11, Forum):
Will Big Oil and Gas soon start drilling without consent?
Regarding fracking, I agree that we should have rights. I’m guessing you’re not going to like “compulsive pooling,” or “forced pooling.” That’s where drillers are allowed to tap local natural gas next door, even if property owners don’t want them probing under their homes and farms.
It’s not here yet. But we must do some homework to protect ourselves. Big Oil and Gas are not going to look out for us.
The Charlotte Observer welcomes your comments on news of the day. The more voices engaged in conversation, the better for us all, but do keep it civil. Please refrain from profanity, obscenity, spam, name-calling or attacking others for their views.
Have a news tip? You can send it to a local news editor; email firstname.lastname@example.org to send us your tip - or - consider joining the Public Insight Network and become a source for The Charlotte Observer.Read moreRead less