Blair invitation
I am so disappointed in Colby College for inviting Tony Blair to give the commencement address at the college. Awarding an honorary degree to a warmonger like Blair destroys the credibility of Colby. Tony Blair’s legacy is that he committed his country to an unjust war of choice in which hundreds of thousands of people died, against the recommendations of his top advisors, when he most likely knew at the time that the intelligence about Iraq WMDs was deliberately falsified to justify war plans already in progress.
Tony Blair is a most inappropriate choice for a commencement speaker, since he will be most remembered for this horrendously destructive decision.
Natasha Mayers
Whitefield
Drastic changes
How can hard-working people continue to survive living in northern Maine? Pretty sad when living off the state seems to be more appealing than an honest day of hard work. And the excuse, “There aren’t any jobs …” And yet, I have had to travel to Bangor for more than nine years to work.
I am sick and tired of seeing people abuse the system. And another excuse, “I can’t afford the gas to travel to work.” And you think I can? And where did the gas money come from to get to town? I have a very hard time feeling sorry for people who refuse to help themselves, and if our state doesn’t wake up and make some drastic changes, we’ll all be sorry.
Michael DeTour
Sherman
Corruption at the pump
When the minimum wage was $1 per hour, gas was 28.9 cents a gallon. That makes gas 28.9 percent that of minimum wage in 1964. Now gas is $4.05 a gallon and minimum wage is $7.50 and that makes gas now 54 percent of the minimum wage. Gas should only be $2.16 a gallon, if not for the corruption at the gas pump.
The petroleum companies in America are reporting record high profits and on March 29, the U.S. Senate voted to continue giving the gas companies grants worth $2 billion. Or as found on the Internet, they are called subsidies.
The high gas prices have dragged this country into the dirt and caused our economic recession and in my opinion the corruption in Washington is unconscionable. We can clean up Washington by refusing to re-elect any incumbent. And if they don’t take the hint, then we re-elect someone else who will listen to the people.
Randall Probert
Bethel
Gay marriage rights
In reference to the hotly contested battle for gay marriage rights: this battle will come to a head this November, when our state again has the question open for voting. I believe that the right should be granted.
There are many who feel that such a thing goes against religious reasoning and precedence. This is not a letter to challenge that statement, this is a letter to point out the fact that the Constitution dictates nothing of the requirements for marriage. The Constitution does actually state: “The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretext, infringed.” To my interpretation, that simply states that the rights of anybody, any group, any social structure, etc., can’t be infringed based on a long-standing religious belief or prejudice.
A religious organization will say that allowing gays to marry violates their beliefs and their rights. I’m not pretending to completely understand the Constitution or our government’s practices, but to me, that would only apply if the religious beliefs didn’t infringe on the rights of anyone else. The rights of gays are in question here and that’s all that matters, looking at it from a secular point of view. The government has to look at it from a secular view, not from the standpoint of any particular religion, for the same reason prayer is no longer allowed in the classroom: separation of church and state.
Michael Nugent
Searsport
In support of Ted Nugent
The First Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
I am sure that both Councilman Longo and Councilman Baldacci have read this amendment at some point in time, but sadly it seems they either did not understand what they had read or, even more disconcerting, they do not believe in the United States Constitution as it is written.
At this time I would like to put the Bangor City Council on notice. My freedom of speech is a right under the law that I have no intention of giving up. Furthermore, I will NOT be voting for Barack Obama in the 2012 presidential election. Maybe the citizens of Bangor should consider the comments of their local candidates before they vote next time.
I had no plans to attend the Ted Nugent concert this summer, but will now. And I would be proud to stand on stage beside Mr. Nugent.
Stuart Kallgren
West Enfield
Why Nugent?
Here’s what I don’t get: Why would Alex Gray want to have such a divisive personality as Ted Nugent associated with the (so far) wonderful brand he has built with Bangor Waterfront Concerts? I do not in any way question his right to book whoever he wants. I simply cannot understand the wisdom behind such a choice. I have asked him, via Facebook, repeatedly and received no response.
Nugent is a man who has bragged about having lots of sex with underage girls and avoiding the draft by defecating in his underwear for several weeks before his draft board physical. He has recently been interviewed by the Secret Service for threatening comments toward our president and our Secretary of State. I do not at all dispute his right to free speech. My point is only this, and I still hope, faintly, for an answer: Alex Gray, why?
Lori Connor
Deer Isle
Michael Nugent, you may not “completely understand the Constitution” but you certainly understood enough to realize that the Constitution is written to protect the rights of all citizens, religious or not. Well researched, well written, well done.
Thank you, Michael Nugent. We aren’t living in a theocracy and the laws are not dictated by any one or two churches. We should all have the same benefits and protections.
Besides that, too, marriage is about love and commitment. Whatever the reasons are straight people get married are the reasons why gay people want to get married. Somebody told me the other day on here that my reasons for wanting to get married to my boyfriend were not reasons for marriage as much as they were vows. I disagree. The reason why my dad married my mom was for love and friendship and fun and companionship and for building a life together. That’s what I want, too, and that’s why I want to marry my boyfriend.
People are free to form relationships as they please. There is no need for the state to endorse relationships unless there are underlying reasons for doing so. The main reason why the state endorses love relationships between two people of the opposite sex committed to a life-long relationship is because of the possibility and likelihood of offspring whose lives the state has a valid interest in. Those who argue for state endorsement of SS unions conveniently ignore this point when they erroneously maintain that marriage is all about relationships.
You conveniently ignore two main points:
1. Men and women will still be able to marry each other and have children
2. Men and men or women and women will be able (and are already able) to have offspring.
Oh, and a third point-
3. Most people don’t grow up dreaming of the day they’ll be able to marry any old person of the opposite sex just so that they could have children for the state.
Concerning your third point, doesn’t having grandparents as role models have any potential value for children? I think it most certainly has.
On your second point, men by themselves or women by themsleves cannot produce offspring without separating children from either one or both of the parents. Encouraging the creation of familes through articial and unnatrual means is not what society needs.
The push for so-called gay marriage appears to be an effort to force society to accept a new set of sexual ethics and morality.
I’m not sure what grandparents has to do with that point. Grandparents will still be there.
Creation of families through artificial and “unnatural” means has been happening among straight couples for 34 years. This is nothing new.
Neither is separating children from their natural parents who are in a straight relationship.
I see this as blatant in-your-face discrimination. So many points that are brought up as reasons why I can’t marry my boyfriend are actions that happen all the time in straight families. Never mind the fact that many straight couples as well as gay couples (ours included) have NO intention of having children.
Gay couples are already having children. AND, in the hugely vast majority of cases, these children are the results of long-term planning. There are seldom accidents that result in a baby in a same-sex relationship. The children that are part of a same-sex family are WANTED and are LOVED.
And again, you dance around the reasons why people truly and really get married.
Forgot to add the mythical lack of grandparents in my response. Of course adopted and “enhanced” kids have grandparents. Ask any adopitve parent whose kids those children in their family are. Ask the grandparents also.
You and Joe obviously misinterpreted my statement. To be clear, I think the relationship through marriage of a widowed grandparent can and often does serve as a good role model for children even though the new set of grandparents can no longer produce offspring. Certainly there is nothing mythical about this, is there?
My issue was that I didn’t understand how that related to my comment.
No, I don’t dance around the issues. Producing offspring through in vitro fertilization almost always denies children of one or both of their parents, and leads to a certain and tragic death of usually several others for each procedure. It should be outlawed, period, for the sake of humanity. This means of reproduction is usually resorted to by single women, surrogate women, or women in a lesbian relationship for their own selfish purpose.
No, there is no discrimination on my part because SS relationships are very different in essence than OS relationships. Unlike OS couples, SS couples were never meant by nature to produce offspring. Also, SS couples should not as a matter of public policy or law be allowed to adopt. Regrettably people here in Maine have had no say in what the policy should be. It was imposed by the liberal court system, the same system that forced an all-male high school wrestling team to accept a female.
Look, the lack of endorsement by the state does not prohibit people from establishing & maintaining relationships. Therefore, there is no need for state endorsement of SS relationships. The real reason why SS couples are pursuing state endorsement of their relationship is, as I have stated earlier, to force public acceptance of these relationships as something that is normal and beneficial. Whether you believe SS relationships are normal and beneficial is up to you, but you have no right to foist it on others by means of the law or other coercive means.
Is the fact that abortion is legal foisting it on me? Is the fact that gambling is legal foisting it on me? Is the fact that being allowed to drink alcohol foisting it on me?
Aside from everything else you said that you know we’ll never agree on, I don’t think that the mere fact that something is legal that doesn’t affect me is “foisting” it on me. Heck, there are people participating in legal activities right now in this state that I don’t know about. Those activities don’t affect me and it’s none of my business. The fact that it happens, whether I like it or not, doesn’t MAKE it my business.
Public acceptance of marriage between two people who love each other and are of the same sex is increasing-and it’s not even legal yet. Dateline-yesterday: http://loyalopposition.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/04/26/support-for-same-sex-marriage-is-up/
Or the source, if you don’t dig that liberal rag: http://features.pewforum.org/same-sex-marriage-attitudes/index.php
There is absolutely no doubt that if citizens approve the “gay marriage’ initiative, the court system will mandate public schools to normalize gay relationships through education, against the will of many parents. If this isn’t “foisting”, then I don’t know what “foisting” means.
There is absolutely doubt that that will happen. That won’t happen. What makes you think that it will happen?
Look no further than Massachusetts and the neighboring country, Canada, where it has already happened. Once the state endorses gay relationships, there will be no rationale to prevent the courts from mandating compulsory “normalization”. All that will be needed for the courts to act is a lawsuit demanding “equal treatment”. Without any doubt the gay lobby will be backing this lawsuit.
More outrageous arguements. Isn’t one of the mantras of the “pro-life” crowd, “don’t abort, adopt”? Creation of families through artificial and unnatural means? You sond like an apolgist for the ultra conservative catholic stance of the only reasons for sexual realations is to precreate and the corolary: contraception and artcivfial insemination are bhad or sinful. Keep telling the millions of adoptive and enhanced birth familes that they’re sinning and immoral and lose any remaining credibility you might have.
You can make all sorts of assumptions about me and what I stand for, but they are for the most part merely assumptions, half-truths, and lies. One thing that seems to have escaped you is my genuine concern for children and the environment into which they are reared. That’s why I favor public policies that favor children’s well-being; policies, for instance, that encourage as much as possible children being raised up in an environment where their natural parents are united and committed to each other in a life-long relationship of love. Contrary to your implication I’m not against adoption. Even though not the best arrangement, it sometimes becomes necessary when the natural parents are non-existent or unsuitable for one reason or another. The strident and wrong assumptions you made against me however are for the most part designed to discredit me on account of my views. It’s one thing to disagree; it’s quite another thing to be disagreeable, disrespectful, and to argue irrationally.
“That’s why I favor public policies that favor children’s well-being; policies, for instance, that encourage as much as possible children being raised up in an environment where their natural parents are united and committed to each other in a life-long relationship of love. ”
How would you want such policies enforced? How would these policies deal with domestic abuse and sexual abuse involving natural straight parents?
I think children should be raised in a home that has love for that child.
I also think that people should be allowed to NOT have children and that policies that address children in families shouldn’t apply to child-free relationships.
We can encourage OS couples to get married instead of simply cohabitating. But we certainly can’t “enforce” (TO USE YOUR TERM) a policy that is intended to encorage parents to take their loving commitments to each other seriously for the sake of their offspring. The incidence of domestic abuse is lower among married couples than with couples who co-habitate. Yes, love is a very impotant component in relationships. But it’s not the only one. Nature plays a vital role. It provides couples with different but complementary attributes that assist in the rearing of offspring.
That idealized version of marriage doesn’t work for everybody.
Encouraging SS couples to take their relationships seriously is not idealization. Even thought we can expect some couples will not take their relationship seriously doesn’t mean others will not be motivated to do so.
On point 3, sounds a little like 1984, doesn’t it?
Yes. Or even a theocracy-marrying so that the man and woman can have children for the church.
Either way, the reasons why people marry or have children isn’t really anyone else’s business.
Your right, the reasons for marrying and having children is not the state’s business. This doesn’t mean however that the state can’t and should not encourage OS couples to marry.
Can’t the state continue to encourage OS couples to marry while still allowing gays to marry among themselves?
If gay men are allowed to marry the gay men they love and gay women are allowed to marry the gay women they love, then the societal pressure for them to marry someone of the opposite gender simply because that person is the opposite gender will be significantly lessened. Gay people marry straight people all the time because they feel they have to but those marriages usually result in unhappy lives for both parties. Wouldn’t it be better if gay people today were free to marry the person they love?
The point is, gay people will always be gay just as straight people will always be straight. Allowing a gay person, like me, to marry the person he or she loves is not going to stop a straight person from marrying the straight person he or she loves.
I want to tell you that although we probably really won’t ever agree on anything related to same-sex marriage, I appreciate this meaningful discussion with you on it.
Another falacious argument that that the only reason for marriage is to have children? How about those couples who arfe infertile? And how about the same sex couples who adopt? Out of necessity or not, they seem to be more willing to adopt than hetero couples do.
Please show me where I indicated that the only reason for marriage is to have children. Those are your words, not mine. It’s obvious that many people who get married nowadays have no intention of procreating. Still, that doesn’t mean they won’t. And what about couples who are infertile? Maybe they will end up adopting children. Gay adoption on the other hand is not in the best interest of children when they can be and should be adopted by OS couples in a permanent marital relationship of love and commitment to each other. Gay adoption, though legal, was imposed by a myopic court system governed by its own liberal ideology (as opposed to the rule of law), the same system that ordered a high school wrestling team to accept a female on the team.
What do you think about the reams of reports that state that children raised by same-sex parents do as well as children raised by opposite-sex parents?
What wrestling team are you talking about? What is this case that you keep referring to?
The case I referred to occurred here in Maine a few years ago where a district judge mandated a H.S. team to accept a female on their all-male team on account of the fact that there was no all-female wrestling team, despite the fact there was not enough interest among females to form an all-female wrestling team.
As to the reports you allude to, they are just reports or claims. Yes, I acknowledge some SS parents do a better job of raising children than some OS parents. This doesn’t mean however that requiring gays be given the opportunity to adopt is good public policy. Good public policy should not be based on anecdotal evidence. This is especially true when it is known that children tend to fare better in families with OS parents in a loving, committed relationship than they do in other types of family arrangements.
Michael Nugent, good letter and points to ponder. I know that I don’t feel threatened in my marriage by the thought of SSM. It is high time that we open our hearts to allow fellow human beings to share in the joy of marriage.
Randal Probert, it isn’t just the gas pumps. It’s the cost of everything. In order to equal the purchase power of the minimum wage in 1965 you need to be making more than $11.00 per hour today.
In the 60s, a buck would buy you a meal at McDonalds. As I said eslewhere, since the cost of living is so much higher, maybe the minimum wage should also increase.
The realisitic stat is what the price of gasoline (and crude, etc.) is in constant dollars, in this case 1964. Those figures are available.
Lori Connor
“There is no such thing as bad publicity except your own obituary.”
Brendan Behan, Irish author & dramatist
Natasha Mayers: Your point about Tony Blair is a valid one. But last year UME’s commencement speaker was our “beloved” Sen. Collins, who voted for every Bush Admin. allocation for that same Iraq War and, as chair of a Senate committee, steadfastly refused to hold hearings on the Humvees that were fatally dangerous to so many American troops. But she, of course, is excused from all of this, where Blair, at least, has faced investigations in the UK.
Generally, when one begins a sentence with “the Constitution does actually state,” he should follow with an example of something the Constitution actually does say. When you make an error that the average fourth grader could identify, the “I’m not pretending to completely understand the Constitution,” disclaimer is unnecessary. Blatent falsehoods, whether deliberate or the product of extreme ignorance shouldn’t be published in a newspaper. What’s even more astounding is that people will line up to congratulate the writer on his great insight.
Astounding. So, what’s YOUR take on the issue, then?
The Constitution does not say at all what Mr Nugent said. What he quoted was Madison’s proposed first amendment draft. Not the one actually adopted, even then Mr Nugents interpretation is incorrect.
Now you’re saying that those words are from another document. How do we know that you aren’t incorrect?
For two reasons. I have a copy of the US Constitution handy. But secondly because it is a very easy thing to look up.
http://quotes.dictionary.com/The_Civil_rights_of_none_shall_be_abridged
Sure it is, but it’s helpful that when one makes an accusation of misquoting that the accuser back up that claim.
Thanks for the link.
Better that the writer not misquote sources in a published piece.
Of course, but why not back up your point? If we don’t know who you are, why should we trust your point over the other’s point?
Because it would be just as easy to prove me wrong or right if you chose to look it up yourself. You don’t set the rules here. How arrogant.
And Mr Nugent is still wrong.
It’s easy enough to back Cheesecake 1955’s accusation of misquoting. Just obtain a copy of the Constitution to see for yourself if it “actually state(s)” what Mr. Nugent claimed. Do I need new glasses? At any rate, gay civil rights are not being violated on account of religious beliefs, as Mr. Nugent claims. The state has never had any interest in endorsing human relationships per se, until recent years, that is.
Again, you’re late to the ball and are nitpicking. Do you really want me to spell it out to you?
Joe, it looks like you are trying to defend the indefensible. Michael Nugent lied when he misquoted the Constitution because the quote simply does not exist in the Constitution. Also, why was this letter to the editor published in the first place? Why all the pretense?
What are you talking about? Who am I defending? What are you saying?
It looks like you are defending Michail Nugent’s lie. Cheesecake gave you the real source (Madison) of the quotation that is nowhere to be found in the Constitution. Check it out for yourself.
Sigh…you’re late to the ball, brah.
I did not congratulate Mr. Nugent on his verbatim use of the Constitution, I did commend him for his research. You see he took the time to look at all the documents that influenced the final version of the Constitution and then made his own conslusions. As anyone knows in research you must look at the influences to understand the conclusion or final product. He may have misspoke but I still stand by my argument based on his research that “the Constitution is written to protect the rights of all citizens, religious or not”.
He did nothing of the kind. No research, none.
“The Constitution does actually state: “The civil rights of none shall be
abridged on account
of religious belief or worship, nor shall any
national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of
conscience be in any manner, or on any pretext, infringed.” Michael Nugent
He didn’t know what he was reading…. and you should be smarter than this. I’ve seen it.
I’m not saying it’s right, but it happens all the time here. To be fair, he did not say the Constitution of the United States.
Now THAT’s funny. Well done.
Pretty naive Lori, Nugent’s show if not already sold out, soon will be thanks to the advertisement of the likes of Longo and of course letters like yours.
You need some work on the Constitution Mr Nugent. It says no such thing. Even if it did I would wager your interpretation would be incorrect.
That said I believe Maine will be the first state to actually approve SSM at the polling place.
Michael Nugent: Good ldetter.
Randal Probert: more like the minimum wage should be higher.
Stuart Kallgren: why should you be on stage?
Michael DeTour – Excellent letter. Far too many people on unemployment remain on unemployment because it’s the easy way out. Of course, with the progressive’s push to 99 weeks, and this being an election year, I doubt too many will be in any hurry to get off of unemployment. Maybe when Romney is President, things will change for the better.
Lori Connor – I see that you’ve joined the choir of unfounded rhetoric against Ted Nugent. Do some research in to the man and you just might change your letter a bit. While you’re researching the Nuge, check out how many homeless and impoverished he and his group have fed FOR FREE over the past few years. No, he’s not perfect, but he’s doing a whole lot more for his fellow man than many of us are.
I don’t see a lot of jobs being advertised or going unfilled so where are all the people on unemployment supposed to find jobs?
Here’s a hundred, just to start.
http://bangor-launch.newspackstaging.com/2012/04/27/news/lewiston-auburn/new-oxford-casino-still-looking-to-fill-more-than-100-jobs/?ref=latest
First off there are 50,000 unemployed Mainers and you show me 100 jobs? What about the 49,900 remaining?
Second,most of those jobs will be minimum wage positions, positions that depend on tips or positions under $10 an hour.
Not really jobs for anyone who does not already live in the area to even think about.
If I my business were to fail today, I would be down at the convenience store taking down the “help wanted” sign this afternoon.
Before you say anything else. I used to work at a convenience store.
Well, I suppose you could do that but if you lived in my town, a small town in southern Penobscot County, you would not be able to find a job because none of them are hiring. But if you did manage to get hired in a conveniece store it would be part time at minimum wage with no benefits and you would most likely need some form of assistance if you are the primary wage earner in your family.
If you did lose your business (and I truly hope you do not and that your business continues to be successful and grows) and had to work in a convenience store for minimum wage or slightly more you would soon go thru your savings (if you had any, most likely not because you would have used a good portion of it trying to save your business) and then start losing possessions. And then some conservative would call you lazy and demand that you move to a location with more jobs (notice I did not say better jobs, because most would still be minimum wage or slightly more) even though you have no resources to move to a different location.
I walked by that “help wanted sign” this morning in Bangor. Granted it would be the sort of job you described…. but it is a starting point.
I would look at it as a not as an end, but as a stop-gap measure until I figured something else out.
First thing I’d do after that is sell my kids XBOX on ebay.
And selling the XBox may buy half a weeks groceries if you have boys. Then what would you sell for next weeks groceries?
Again…. its a stop-gap measure. But I’d have a better idea of how to proceed by then.
Cheesecake: if you lived in a world where everybody was young and enthusiastic, had IQs above 100, were physically able-bodied, without health issues, came from caring intact families, were mentally stable and healthy, well educated and sensible you could demand that society live up to you almost impossible entrepreneurial, moral and work standards.
I find it sad that you seem never to have considered how blessed you are that you were born smart, had the wisdom, health and determination to make a success of your life and that others have not been given the same gifts. Can you not see this?
Those are of course standards I set for myself.
Too often though, we as a society facilitate failure and discourage success. A point in fact a record 5.4 million workers and their dependents have signed up for SSDI since President Obama took office. Right now and you have seen me post it before, over 4.7% of the adult working age population is incapable of working for one physical/medical reason or another and is dependent on the government for their support.
This is not unemployment or any temporary program. It is for the rest of their lives.
Something is dreadfully wrong when 1 in 20 is unable to work. When many millions more lack initiative and seem to want to sit around waiting for some government program to come along and make things easier.
Searoses example should be held as a model for all of us. We need to encourage people to take a chance, take a risk. Not show them a way that they don’t have to.
I have been fortunate in my own “Forrest Gump” sort of way and I ally my guilt for that by contributing to the community as I am able.
Your contributions to the community are valued. Espousing and voting for harsh measures toward people that have been ground down by mental and physical health issues, poverty, lack of stability and poor education will never create a healthy vigorous, risk taking, work force. Taking resources away from poor people doesn’t make them work harder. Acting as if every person that’s ever lost a job is a lazy tax sucking beer drinking alcoholic bum doesn’t create a happy eager work force. How does cutting educational facilities produce the innovative science and technology that drives prosperity. How does destroying unions and gutting wages make people able to save enough to take risks and start businesses.
Optimism, and simple humanity, not your brand of poor bashing, wage busting, resource denying pessimism , drives prosperity.
I grew up in a household with just my mother to take care of us three kids in the early ninetee-sixties. I personally know what poverty is and I refuse to go back there no matter how much folks like you want me to.
How on earth did you get that out of what I said. Why would I want to wish poverty on anyone?
What if they didn’t hire you? Place like McDonald’s, don’t want to hire, people they feel won’t stay. They also won’t hire people who they feel might rock the boat. My husband applied for jobs at these places, almost all of the fast food, wal-mart and others, we started our own business with our 401k… not everyone can do this. We also sold most everything we had, and moved back to my home town, not everyone can do that either. Some people can’t do better then they are, because they can not see how to do better.
Congrats on your business, best of luck. Sincerely.
Not everyone has the ready assets that you did. True. But you made an effort, made some decisions and took some risk. In return you increased your personal odds of succeeding.
Not everyone is cut out to do what you did… but by not doing so they also made a decision. Life doesn’t come with an instruction manual.
Or guarantees.
the stores around here don’t have “help wanted” in the windows….I haven’t seen one of those signs in decades….which is probably where your thoughts on this matter are from!
At almost $4 a gallon, who can go outside their home area to look for work these days? Get real, more people can’t even live paycheck to paycheck these days.
Wrong. The two convenience stores on state st have both had them in the last year.
So two jobs opened up on State Street, both most likely part-time, minimum wage or low paying wages and without benefits so every unemployed person in Bangor (I am guessing there are more than two) are lazy, shiftless people leaching off of societies back.
Lest we forget, in order to be able to afford gas first you have to be able to afford a car.
You are older, you won’t get the job. You may be over qualified, you won’t get the job. You are a man, you will be offered the midnight shift, but you are old so you won’t be very sharp at 2AM. You will lose your job. You will instruct poor customers who use food stamps to get a coffeecake that they could just as easily have made it at home and saved you some tax money. Management will not be happy with your instructional efforts. You will lose your job. LOL
Overqualified ? LOL
she said “may be” :)
Overqualified is code for “too old.”
I agree. This is the time of year that hundreds of migrant workers start arriving in the County.
If my business were to fail today, one less worker would have to make the trip.
Migrant workers do not make enough money to live a life where they don’t have to follow the crops.
Plus you would only be hired, if you were to be hired, for the summer and then would have to be looking for work in Maine in the Fall and Winter. Not good times to be looking foro a job in Maine.
And if, heaven forbid, you were to get sick while working as a migrant, you would have no health insurance so your medical care would be expensive if you could get any (you would not make enough money to afford health insurance by yourself) and you would most likely lose your job if you missed a day’s work.
I realize that there are plenty of excuses to not work at all, I’ve worked many seasonal jobs over the years. That they are temporary or do not have the benefits you think are required are no reason to ignore them when times are tough, You do what you can while planning for better, The sense of entitelment that is pervasive in this country astounds and discourages me,
According to the article they have jobs for chamber maids at $9.00/hr= about 18,000/ year before payroll taxes and cashiers jobs at $12.50/hr = about $25,000/year before taxes.
To get either one of these jobs one would have to leave one’s home, one’s support system of family and friends, move to Oxford for a job with no advancement possibilities, little hope of pay increase, no union to guarantee fair treatment or job security and where housing costs have risen steeply.
Neither of these jobs could support a family without significant assistance from the government. These jobs are essentially subsidies to the gambling industry since the government has to kick in health care, food stamps and possibly housing assistance. All this from a casino that will make billions and billions in one year. So much for casinos providing good paying jobs.
And those jobs are most likely not full time positoins with benefits either.
I have two friends who worked at Hollywood Slots for a while. Both got less than minimun wage plus tips, one had to quit because he could not afford the gas to get back and forth to work and the other one was lucky enough to get promoted to a position that pays $10 an hour but is still not full time with benefits.
The Oxford casino said the jobs were full time. They didn’t say anything about benefits. However, since they are hourly, not contract, jobs and non-unionized, there is absolutely no guarantee that once one gets a job that the casino will not cut hours, wages, which I suspect they will do if Hollywood slots is only hiring part time. It’s a rotten industry.
Most Maine jobs are the same. I quit one low-paying job to take another one that offered health insurance, which never materialized. Sorry, they said, it seems we can’t afford it. Did they make up for it? No.
Some folks just don’t want help if it involves any effort on their part.
(See comments above)
They pull themselves up by the bootstraps!!!
Or at least recognize the ability to make a living when it floats by, and it does all the time.
Listings pelase.
The opportunity to do better than you are right now doesn’t come with a guidebook. It is different for everyone. You have to recognize it for yourself.
My” listings” wouldn’t make sense to you, but I have one hobby that I could probably make a living on if I put in the effort. My initial investment 6 years ago was $200.00
The jobs are out there. One just has to be willing to swallow their pride if the need be. And there’s always the option of moving to where the work is. Trouble is, the government has made it too easy to just sit and collect. Then they remind you to vote Democrat so your benefits will continue. It’s nothing more than voluntary slavery.
I was looking at new apartments the other day. Most require 1st and last month’s rent and a security deposit, so somewhere in the vicinity of $2000 to move to a new location to search for a job.
I’m betting that most unemployed people don’t have $2000 lying around waiting to be used. Or they could find a dirty little apartment in a dangerous neighborhood to live in, after all they are poor.
“Far too many people on unemployment remain on unemployment because it’s the easy way out.”
Spoke like someone who has never been on unemployment.
Actually, I was on unemployment for nearly 6 months last year because the company I was working for went under. In that time, I attained a state license and am currently working as an independent contractor. I could have stayed on unemployment for another year and a half, but could not continue to take from the taxpayers when I was perfectly capable of working for myself.
Are you forgetting to mention your military pension of 1/2 original pay which comes from taxpayers?
I gave up 20+ years of my life and earned that rather small retirement I receive. And I pay taxes on that retirement.
My father “gave up” 20 plus years of his life to earn his retirement (although if you said gave up part of his life he would most likely hurt you for saying that) and his retirement income from the military is very nice not to mention paid healthcare for life (that probably saves him several hundred dollars a month) and reduced cost of groceries and other items at the PX.
The small retirement represents $15-20,000/year plus full health care and still allows you to work another job. I believe it’s called double dipping. I think it’s fine for you to have this wonderful and supportive opportunity. However, you should probably not go spouting off about how you are pulling yourself up by the boot straps and advising those without a comfy $15-20,000/year cushion to also just start using their boot straps.
Randall Probert – Comparing minimum wage to gas prices is empty at best. But, in your letter, you did make a couple of slight errors. For instance:
The “record high profits” that the anti-oil crowd likes to scream from the mountaintop is nothing more than a deceitful diversion from the facts. The facts are that the oil industry makes profits, but they make them at a rate that equals about half of the profits made by most other industries. And another thing that is forgotten is that much of the oil profits go into research and development of products that make our lives better.
Another misconception concerns oil subsidies. Oil subsidies only make up 13% of the total energy subsidies that the government pays out, but the return on that 13% is far greater than just about any other subsidy out there. I mean, just look at the money we’re wasting on wind and solar, and they get a whole lot more in subsidies than oil, and their returns are in the negatives.
And then you wrote, “The high gas prices have dragged this country into the dirt and caused our economic recession.” No, it’s been the government and the massive over-spending that has dragged this country down. President Bush allowed far too much spending and government expansion, and President Obama has more than doubled down on both.
But, you did end on a good note. We do need to clean up Washington. All the progressives and establishment Republicans need to go.
Profits do not go into research. If they did they would not be considered profits but research monies in the budget. Profits are taken after all costs incureed are paid for and that includes research monies.
That depends on the time frame you mean, equipment depreciation and a number of other tax considerations. It isn’t as simple a thing as you think.
Equipment depreciation and other tax considerations do not change the profits af a company. They change the amount of taxes they pay on those profits. R and D is taken ont of teh earnigns of a compnay before they consider what their profit is.
EJ claimed that most of the porfits an oil company makes goes in to R and D which is just not true. Oil company profits go to shareholders, if a public company, or owners, if a private company and those profits are determined after all taxes have been paid.
“Equipment depreciation and other tax considerations do not change the profits af a company. ”
They most certainly do. In fact most success in a business, no matter the size, is determined by how it manages its tax liabilities. Equipment and real estate depreciation are part of that.
It is NOT a matter of (in -out = profit X tax rate = govt cut.) It is far more complex than that.
Much confusion on revenues and profits. Research and advertizing are pre-profit figures.
In 2010 people thought they were going to clean up Washington by voting in a lot of Tea Party people and what did they get for their efforts ? Please give a small list of their accomplishments that have been good for our country. I’ll help you out . They have none. If they’ve proved anything at all it’s that they don’t have a clue how to govern and they’ll give big business and the wealthy every thing they want at the expense of the rest of us. They fit right in the Republicans. Please explain to me why Exxon Mobil , who averages millions of dollars an hour in profits and pays no taxes,needs our hard earned tax dollars . Do you really think they’ll suddenly stop looking for oil if they don’t get it? They can make our lives better by paying taxes like the rest of us.
Actually, you’re wrong. So far there are just over 30 bills passed by the House that have been tabled by the Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid, that all contain assistance for job creating and cost controls. And Reid has the blessing of the President, because the Dems don’t want to help the job creators or the country.
Job creators in this country are the small business owners who create local jobs. Job creators are people in this country who buy things, things that need to be replaced by manufacturing replacement items. Job creators are people who use a service that needs to employ people.
Job Creators are not the rich and ultra rich who live off of trust funds or capital gains or dividends or defered interest income.
Job creators are you and me, people who create a demand for a product or service that someone will fill. No product or service will provide a job if there is no demand for it. Supply Side Economics is, in George Herbert Walker Bush’s own words, Voodoo Economics.
You’re right. And most of the 30+ bills that Senator Reid has tabled are aimed at small businesses, consumers, and you and me.
The only type of help the Republicans have put forward so far have been bills to cut taxes on the rich and claim they are helping small business.
You want to help small business, invest in infrastructure like roads, bridges and schools not tax cuts for the rich and corporations. Invest in providing affordable, fast, cheap High Speed internet (did you know that socialist europe has faster cheaper internet for everyone?)
The Republicans could have helped the economy by passing bills that the house passed in 2008 and 2009 that would have made it easier for small business to get loans to expand but insterad they filibustered in the Senate.
The Republicans could have gone along with the House in 2008 and 2009 when they passed a bill to encourage investment in the US by removing tax breaks for companies that moved their operations off shore and instead give tax breaks to companies that moved their operations back to the US but the Republicans in the Senate filibustered it.
Republicans define small business as any business with fewer than 500 employees.
You are incorrect. The definition can change with every piece of legislation. It is not political party specific rather it is subject specific.
The Federal EPA and SBA & Department of Labor might all have different definitions of what a small business is because of the rules effect each business differently. Throw in the State agencies that cover the same areas who also define categories for business and that just just adds to the confusion. There is no conspiracy afoot. You have an active imagination on this one.
SUMMARY OF SIZE STANDARDS BY INDUSTRY DIVISIONTo qualify as a small business concern for most SBA programs, small business size standards define the maximum size that a firm, including all of its affiliates, may be. The SBA has established two widely used size standards – 500 employees for most manufacturing and mining industries and $7.0 million in average annual receipts for most nonmanufacturing industries. However, many exceptions exist. Construction – General building and heavy construction contractors have a size standard of $33.5 million in average annual receipts. Special trade construction contractors have a size standard of $14.0 million. The size standard for Land Subdivision is $7.0 million in average annual receipts. The size standard for Dredging is $20.0 million in average annual receipts.Manufacturing – For approximately 75 percent of the manufacturing industries, the size standard is 500 employees. A small number have a 1,500 employee size standard and the balance have a size standard of either 750 or 1,000 employees.Mining – All mining industries, except mining services, have a size standard of 500 employees.Retail Trade – The size standard for most retail trade industries is $7.0 million in average annual receipts. A few, such as grocery stores, department stores, motor vehicle dealers and electrical appliance dealers, have higher size standards. None are above $29.0 million.Services – For the service industries, the most common size standard is $7.0 million in average annual receipts. Computer programming, data processing and systems design have a size standard of $25.0 million. Engineering and architectural services have different size standards, as do a few other service industries. The highest annual receipts
size standard in any service industry is $35.5 million. Research and development and environmental remediation services are the only service industries with size standards stated in number of employees.Wholesale Trade – For all wholesale trade industries, a size standard of 100 employees is applicable for loans and other financial programs. When acting as a dealer on Federal contracts set aside for small business or issued under the 8(a) program, the size standard is 500 employees and the firm must deliver the product of a small domestic manufacturer, as set forth in SBA’s nonmanufacturer rule, unless waived by the SBA for a particular class of product. However, for those procurements made under the Simplified Acquisition Procedures of the FAR and where the purchase does not exceed $25,000, the nonmanufacturer may deliver the goods of any domestic manufacturer.Other Industries – Other industry divisions include: Agriculture; transportation, communications, electric, gas, and sanitary services; and finance, insurance and real estate. Because of wide variation in the industry structure of the industries in these divisions, there is no common pattern of size standards. For specific size standards as of January 1 of each year refer to the size regulations in 13 CFR §121.201. SBA’s table of small business size standards includes all changes and modifications made since January 1 of the most recent year.USE OF SIZE STANDARDS FOR LOANS AND OTHER FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAMSFor SBA business loans the concern must meet the size standard for the industry in which it, including its affiliates, is primarily engaged as well as the size standard for the primary industry of the applicant concern, not including its affiliates. The SBA determines whether the loan applicant is an eligible small business. Applicants for financial assistance under the Small Business Investment Company (SBIC) and Development Company (504) Programs, must meet the size standard for business loans (see above), or as an alternative, not exceed the following criteria:
That does nothing to dispute my point.
The definition of a small business depends on the specific agency doing the defining. You will find the SBA defines a small business in one way, the Department of Labor could define the same business completely differently. The EPA again a different way and so on endlessly through any agency that has regulations for business of any size.
Sure some of them have changed but it looks like most of the businesses are still defined as 500 employees. Agricultural and forestry are still defined as small business with less than 1000 employees.
Yes, for the SBA only but not necessarily for any other agency.
Actually , I’m not wrong. The only thing your pals pushed through the house was more of the same old garbage of giving tax breaks to people who don’t need them and claiming that by doing so their mythical job creators would suddenly appear and create an economic boom. How many years of failed trickle down economic policies does it take to get people like you to come to the realization that there has never been a shred of credible evidence that suggests these policies work.
And the proportional investment in R&D by the oil andgas industry consdierably lags all other technological indsutries.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
Those are the exact words found in the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution. How many people who are defending Ted Nugent’s 1st Amendment Rights on this forum were also defending the OWS movement’s 1st Amendment Rights?
Of course theyhave a right to protest. They do not have the right to break laws and ordinances. Lastly, I have the first amendment right to ridicule.
I was…the OWS had every right to protest and speak out. They didn’t and still do not have the right to ignore rules or ordinances and break laws.
BDN edited my original letter, unfortunately…I understand, pbmann, that there aren’t a lot of jobs, especially in northern maine, but again, the government hasn’t done a lot about this problem either. People need to wake up and start voting for what’s right, which means not supporting more programs that help the least productive citizens in our state. It’s people like myself working to take care of the people who aren’t, and I’m finding it harder and harder to take care of my own family, especially since I spend thousands of dollars a year just to get to work.
Julie.
I know what you’re sayin’.
Maybe you could save on gas if you catch a ride with the methadrones that travel every day. (:
Every time “the government” comes up with a plan to create jobs, all you “I’m-making-it-so-can-you” bootstrap Republicans start screeching about government spending, government handouts, government interference in business, big brother government , big government programs, government welfare and cutting government down to a size where you can drown it in the bathtub. Given Republican’s hostile refusal to do anything about the economy for fear that President Obama might succeed in getting us out of this recession exactly what are you expecting “the government” to do in northern Maine to create jobs?
Its not that we don’t want the government to do something… but invariably they do the wrong something and make things worse. Note three years of anemic growth after a trillion dollars spent. Give a businessperson a trillion dollars and you will create lots of jobs and more wealth for everyone… Have Obama spend a trillion dollars and you get ….. well….. this.
Give a businessperson a million dollars with very low taxes on earnings and that businessperson will invest in higher risk investments that will get taxed at a low rate, not on a risky investment to create jobs.
Why do you think Wall Street and the NYSE are doing so well while Maine Street is still struggling to survive.
If you give a businessperson a trillion dollars to create jobs, what jobs would they create? What would they manufacture so that they could sell enough of their product to make a profit. With most people only being able to afford the necessities there is no demand for the jobs your hypothetical businessperson is going to create. Without demand there are no jobs, giving tax cuts to busines people will not create anymore demand for their product or service.
The Republican myth of “Job Creators” is an attempt to hid the tax breaks and cuts for the very rich by saying that all those tax cuts would invigorate the job market.
There can be no invigoration of the economy until the common everyday person has more money to spend on products and services.
Without that demand there are no jobs to be created.
Thank you for busting that annoying and erroneous “job creators” crap that conservatives continue to spout. It never has passed the simple Supply and Demand formula of basic economics.
In the old days clever marketers could create a demand. Remember ring around the collar? That strategy can no longer work in an economy where most people can only afford absolute necessities.
Another thing most folks don’t realize (our current crop of economists among them) is that private consumer demand doesn’t become a real driver of the economy until business to business demand is high. That is why Obama failed at rebuilding the economy.
Stimulus programs in the past Democrat & Republican were aimed at that b2b aspect because that is where job creation happens.
Jobs are not created because people buy more twinkies. It happens when one business NEEDS to buy a product from another business and credit is available to do that. That need might be driven by a technological innovation, a new business model for example. When that happens a job is created on both sides of the relationship. Those new jobs then create the consumer demand. Jobs don’t come first a need for them does. Obama and his economic team thought that if enough consumers bought twinkies he could build an economy. He has proven things don’t work that way.
I don’t believe that’s what President Obama and his economic team thought, as you wrote. Say what you like about them, but one thing they are not is stupid.
Maybe, but he called putting money in the pockets of consumers “stimulus”. It isn’t. It’s maintenance.
The stimulus included a lot more than that.
Yep Some of the components were:
Tax credits for energy…. GE pays zero Income tax.
Result: Some jobs created in US but most in China.
Shovel-ready Construction jobs that cost $300k each job created.
Billions to the states for medicare and medicaid payments.
more Billions to city and local governments for Patriot Act purchases and training, Some environmental projects at the city level.
School funding to maintain teacher levels because of lost revenue at the state and city level.
Extended unemployment benefits 99 weeks.
A case could be made for any one of these programs but to call them stimulus is a misnomer and did zero to stimulate the economy in the traditional sense.
Both Carter and Clinton engaged in a stimulus plan that only cost the taxpayers $30 billion or so each. Some say the Carter business-directed stimulus worked so well that it set off a wave of inflation that cost him his reelection.
That was $30 billion dollars in a $2.3 trillion economy.
Obama spent (not counting addition to the deficit) $800 billion in $14.4 trillion economy.
Over 4 times as much.
Cost the taxpayers $30 billion each? I’d say you’re math is off. LOL
Nope! Not all. The Carter stimulus that set off a wave of inflation in the late 70’s was only $30 billion dollars. So to the Clinton stimulus was only $31.0 billion…
From the Los Angeles Times March 6th 1993
http://articles.latimes.com/1993-03-06/news/mn-232_1_economic-stimulus-package
So much for your twinkie analogy.
and it failed…. was not stimulus.
GW Bush gave Americans a “Stimulus” in 2001 by cutting checks to all taxpayer. Of course he had to borrow the money to do it and thus started the deficit spending pattern again.
Interesting. So after these companies have bought equipment and raw materials from each other all they need to do is keep cranking out a products and the economy just bounds upward. The private consumer just doesn’t enter the picture.
Always in any business cycle…. Always… The consumer is the last to the party.
Business and industry starts their buying based on the knowledge that there are customers out there that will buy their products? The consumer may be the last to receive the benefits of a rising economy but they have to be willing to buy or business isn’t going to invest. Right now many consumers do not have the ability to buy. That’s where, what you dismiss as, a maintenance stimulus does help the economy.
NO NO NO An existing business buys a product from another business because by doing so they become more productive or more competitive. That is where new jobs come from early in any business cycle. The consumer has no role in my bottom line when I can improve it by adding another companies product to improve my business and its services. Those exchanges set off a pattern of stable job growth. Company #1 adds a job because they can afford to and company #2 adds a job to make the product for company #1.
The consumer doesn’t add into it at this stage. Only when the consumer/worker has a job does her money enter the mix.
And if they don’t have jobs which is the situation now do companies still buy equipment and raw materials and make products?
Of course, because of the existing customer base but the result is mere maintenance and not growth. But we need “new” growth do we not? Where does that come from is the question. Business to business purchases is the answer. The consumer has no money and won’t have any unless productivity gains at company one are produced by a product that necessitated the hiring of a new employee by company number two.
Of course you are correct. You can’t get a start-up loan unless you can prove a credible market share, meaning that there are already people who want your product.
OK, you come up with a really good plan for northern Maine.
It would be good if there were incentives for established businesses to develop and expand. Single-payer healthcare might also let smaller businesses off the hook for that huge expense and possibly allow them to hire more employees.
How much money you going to give me to work with?
Exactly the amount LePage is willing to give you.
Pppffftttt
Well now there’s a comment I can agree with whole-heartedly. Pfft on yours and LePage’s commitment to create jobs.
You asked me what I would theoretically do to create jobs in the county . I asked for financial limitations. Give me a trillion dollars you would get one answer. Give me a million you would get another. So????
And like a good Republican, who pulls themselves up by the boot straps every morning you should be able to create lots of jobs with what ever LePage is putting into job creation. So far I haven’t heard any significant numbers from him. So, there you are start creating jobs with nothing, like LePage is doing.
Ms Mayers is an extremely powerful person. But inviting a single individual to speak, she says 200 years of Colby history has been totally wiped out. All the wonderful things Colby graduates have accomplished, and the school from which they graduated, have no credibility for this one act. What Ms Mayers doesn’t realize is that her life, and in fact all of our lives, have been made better by Colby and it’s graduates. In fact, that is true of all our colleges and universities. And the invited guy doesn’t even reside in the United States. An earlier letter in another paper decried the fact that the country was being held hostage by extremists. Liberals and conservatives have managed co-existence for lo these many years and are honorable people with the best interests of the United States of America in their hearts. Extremists do not. They are selfish, me-first amebas. They are out to destroy the country. They rail against patriots as being communists. I contend their point of view, on both ends of extremism, is, in fact, communistic. My way or the highway. That what Ms Mayers contends. It’s time we took back our country.
I’m not crazy about Nugent nor his music.He is Famous for his over the top mouth and actions and probably border line legal. Do we want to get to the point where we scrutinize our performers for their beliefs and words? Who would pass this test? Dylan? Lynyrd Skynyrd? I think that a bad path to take.
I you find him offensive, don’t go!
John Lennon and Charlie Chaplin were deported for their anti-government remarks, but they never made death threats, not even close.
John Lennon was never deported.
I stand corrected. He fought deportation for over three years.
Here’s the difference Croshaul. When you hire Lynyrd Skynyrd et al. you are hiring them specifically for their radical music. Your audience expects something off beat, outrageous or off the wall. That’s what they are paying to see. You have certain expectation for the band and they are fulfilled. Everyone is happy.
Mr. Nugent would be hired to play Country Western. The crowd would expect Country Western. They would not expect to be harangued about how President Obama is taking away Mr Nugent’s First and Second Amendment rights or who will be dead the next election or why carrying a gun while ranting and raving instead of playing music makes any sense at all. The audience came to hear music and very likely someone in the audience will say something to that effect. What will Mr. Nugent say? Would this be what the crowd paid to come see?
If Bangorians really want a ranting, raving, gun totting, Obama hating conservative then they should hire one and bill him as such.
And that’s the difference. You should expect to get what you paid for. With Mr. Nugent, there is a very likely chance you will get something your audience did not expect to hear.
Ted Nugent playing “both kinds of music – country and western” is not at all something the audience would expect to hear.
First of all most of those who espouse to see Mr. Nugent very well expect to hear is ramblings, thats what he is famous for! However,you missed my point….
I thought your point was don’t go if you don’t like his politics. I was not aware that his concerts were part music part political rants. If everybody is looking forward to a double treat of music and political threatening then fine, I’ve got no issue. However, it was my impression that many like his music but would just as soon not have to listen to his politics.
Mr. Nugent used a public forum insult and make veiled threats against the President of the United States. He accused President Obama of taking away his Second Amendment right to own and carry a gun. He ranted that people were restricting his freedoms. He raved about gun control. He sounded unstable. The Secret Service thought it worth while to question him about his statements. He had to issue a formal apology.
Is Mr. Nugent’s music so good that it over rides his inability to behave acceptably in public?
there are plenty of musicians that throw their own political views at crowds when on stage. Alot of them have left leaning views and everyone on the planet knows that. If someone doesn’t want to go, no one is forcing them. believe me, people that are going to his concert know full well what they are going to see and hear. I wish you people that think that they have to think for the rest of us would just stop it for a while.
Randall Probert, the pump don’t work ’cause the vandals took the handle. Enron Gasoline is down to $8.37 per liter. Gotta go get some.