Chuck Colson was a changed man
This nation has lost a great and kind man and there are countless people who loved him and owe their changed lives to his faithfulness and loving concern for prisoners and other broken people.
Timothy M. Phelps, who wrote the article about Chuck Colson’s death in the BDN (April 23), went to great lengths to elaborate on his past. The man who died was a changed man, “born again.” As the Bible says in II Corinthians 5:17, “Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; old things have passed away; behold all things have become new.”
I and many others will always revere and love the man we knew as Chuck Colson. And that is the Chuck Colson who God knew and welcomed home.
Lois MacGregor
Orrington
Mainers Understand
As the BDN editorial states in its title (April 13, 2012), we do indeed need more “understanding” concerning immigration policy.
Since most of this editorial was apparently based on conversations with Maine businesses who employ many foreign workers and are advocating for even more immigration, some questions are in order: Why do these employers need to recruit workers from other countries rather than from Maine? Do we need a better connection between the training and education of our own people and the needs of these employers? Maybe the governor could help. If we currently lack workers with the right skills in Maine, why aren’t employers recruiting from the 20 million unemployed and underemployed Americans in other states?
Is there really no one else in America who can process Barber Foods chickens? I’m especially puzzled about why Barber Foods, your editorial’s example of a “balanced approach” to immigration, is advocating for more foreign workers at the same time that they are laying people off.
Mainers understand that importing low-skill workers from away while thousands here lack jobs doesn’t make sense. They understand that with recruitment and training, Mainers would fill those jobs. They understand that common sense workplace enforcement would protect Maine workers, their legal immigrant co-workers and their law-abiding employers from unfair competition from illegal workers and their unscrupulous employers. And enforcing immigration laws would make a huge dent in identity fraud. Mainers understand that a subject as important as immigration policy and employment deserves discussion of facts rather than slogans and platitudes.
Jonette Christian
Mainers for Sensible Immigration Policy
Holden
Postal Service
The Postal Service’s plans for massive closures and cuts are still on the table, though postponed ( “Postal Service”, April 26). We should be enhancing not reducing the value of post offices, making them one-stop government service centers — DMV licenses, hunting and fishing licenses, utility and traffic ticket payment centers and more — along with other community services such as small-deposit banking and Internet access.
The immediate financial crisis facing the USPS is just an accounting problem. The USPS does not need a taxpayer bailout, just a transfer of postal monies (derived from postage — the postal service receives no tax money) from the overfunded pension and retiree health benefit accounts. No elimination of Saturday delivery or closure of post offices and sorting facilities is needed, just action by Congress (HR 3591) or an executive order of the president.
Renee Overlock
NALC president
Central Maine Branch 391
Hampden
Reagan did raise taxes
Ramesh Ponnuru (Friday, April 27) charges that “Obama, Republicans Ransack Reagan.”
Why not? The Reagan of Ponnur’s column is a myth and myths are meant to be ransacked.
Myth No. 1, that he didn’t raise taxes. Reagan did raise taxes but only on the very poor. He raised the FICA tax, which funds social security and Medicare, a totally regressive tax only on low income.
Reagan didn’t so much make government look easy as turn the responsibilities of office over to others, including astrologists, as his mind was ravaged by disease.
What has grown like a malignancy in the U.S. since Reagan is the military budget. While it can be argued that revving up military expenditures and supporting the Taliban in Afghanistan did cause the collapse of the Soviet Union, it looks as if the strategy is now doing the same for us.
It is not the demands of the poor that ransack the U.S. economy but rather a health care system that functions to create profit, a for-profit system now being adopted for prisons, education and war.
Taxpayers now pay private corporations to make a profit to imprison people, to educate children and to wage war across the globe.
Whoever was in charge during the Reagan years did much to develop this trajectory for the U.S., but the process was set in motion under Carter and greatly accelerated under Clinton. It has been a bipartisan transformation.
Karen Saum
Belfast
Woman, Women 2012
As a woman, I would like to thank Michael Montgomery ( “Women 2012”, April 26 BDN) for telling us what we should think. Left to our own devices we might look at, for example, the fact that all of the job losses during the Obama administration were in his first year, when the stench of the Bush economic policies were still ravaging our economy.
We would be fooled by the more than four million private sector jobs created since that first year, the largest increase in manufacturing jobs in more than a decade, and the near doubling of the Dow Jones Industrial average. As an member of the University of Maine economics department, he shows us that we should stop looking at the economy and employment after 2009 or worrying about things male Republicans like him tell us we don’t need to know. On our own, we’d never compare this recovery to the one in 2002, which followed a dramatically smaller recession than the one Bush unleashed on America.
He regards the four million new jobs and the largest increase in manufacturing jobs in more than a decade as “spinning” the data and thinks the Obama people are using the good news in the economy to fool us. Mr. Montgomery, along with that other great feminist thinker of the right, Rush Limbaugh, are needed to show us why the staggering job losses (700,000 a month) during the Bush years are better than millions of newly created jobs under Obama. Makes you wonder why Romney trails Obama by more than 20 percent with women voters.
Dale Kimball-Kocot
Belfast
Chuck Colson was a sleazy little promoter to the very end. He made a fortune selling his brand of fundamentalism and favoritism to prisons all over the US. The courts finally put an end to his reform scams which were built on giving special rights and privileges only to prisoners who accepted the Colson religion. It was a corrupt and corrupting program. Nobody was saved and the recidivism rate for those in his program was exactly the same as the general prison population. Disgusting!
I don’t suppose you would have anything kind to say about Mother Teresa either,
would you? I say this because your image of Chuck Colson is a gross distortion of the man who dedicated his life after the Watergate Scandal in selfless service to all he encountered. If Mr. Colson did not live an exemplary life, I don’t know of anybody else who might have. With that, I don’t know where you get your barnyard information. I think you need to check out your sources for accuracy and motives. Maybe the fact he was against SS marriage colored your image of him. Suffice it to say Mr. Colson was not alone in this conviction as most Americans are against it as well.
Did not know Colson was against SS marriage. I do know he ran a religious prison reform scam using public funds that involved prisoners getting money and special privileges if they accepted Colson’s Jesus. Colson used his government contacts to get his “reform” program into the prison system. It violated the 1st Amendment and was stopped in most states. His program produced the same recidivism rates as the regular prison programs, in spite of what he claimed. The special privileges caused significant tension between Colson’s Christians and the regular prisoners. Colson made a fortune on his scam. Time, Newsweek and and newspapers have reported regularly on Colson’s activities. I don’t know as I would call those sources producers of barnyard products. So what does Mother T have to do with any of this.
Unfortunately your information is of the barnyard type. Colson founded a faith-based program (Innercharge) that according to a reliable study reduced the recidivism rate among released prisoners who graduated from its program by roughly two thirds or 8%. There was no scam on his part as the program was part of a faith-based initiative approved by the federal government. Colson’s books (about 30 in all) enjoyed a wide readership and admiration of millions of people. If anything, his writings are responsible for turning thousands of people’s lives around for the better, not just prisoners’ lives.
His books may have inspired. I never read them. I do know that recidivism rate was Colson’s claim and did not hold up under scrutiny and over time. I also know his programs were thrown out of most prisons as violating the 1st Amendment. When Colson revamped his reform program to comply with the 1st Amendment nobody joined the programs.
I’m sorry Whawell. Colson was a scammer. Here’s how he came up with the recidivism rate for his program. Does this sound honest to you???
Colson always argued the study demonstrated that those who completed the program experienced a significantly decreased recidivism rate.What he didn’t tell you is that the standards for “completing” the program dramatically skew the numbers in his favor. A person is only defined as a graduate if they stick with the program for a period of time, then are released from jail, and get a job after their release. In other words, a person who sat in on the ministry classes for the required amount of time, left the program, and then couldn’t find a job, wouldn’t be considered to have completed a program. Therefore, if they were arrested later, that would be counted as a win for Colson, because they didn’t do what they what they were supposed to, therefore this proves that failing to “complete” the program was correlated with their arrest.
His “accounting” scheme for making his recidivism rate look good has been fairly well publicized. I’m sorry you haven’t seen it before.
Like all good tent revivalists, he was selling snake oil and a lot of people bought it.
I read more about the program, that is, from excerpts written by atheists of late. I grant you that his study might have been somewhat flawed. This doesn’t mean however that this reflects fowl play on his part as most statistical studies have some flaws in it that are not always apparent. I’m sure more will be written about the study. I suspect a time limit to complete the program applied, which in this case would validate his findings if the recidivism rate after that time period was calculated.
We’re just going to have to agree to disagree Whawell. I think he was a sleazy self-promoter that conned a lot of good but naive people using religion. You think he was honest man who spent the rest of his life helping people in need. As with all flamboyant and controversial figures the truth probably lies somewhere between our two perceptions. Perhaps I could be less suspicious and you less naive.
I heard him speak on TV several times. Flamboyant he did not appear to be. He didn’t appear to be controversial either. In fact he felt prison was not a place for most non-violent felons.
LIke I said we have to agree to disagree.
Check out this Wikipedia source under the heading Prison Ministry for the success rate of his recidivism program:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Colson
PS: THIS SOURCE IS CONTINUALLY UPDATED
I followed Mr. Colson’s career fairly closely after Watergate. I was stunned and not just a little suspicious of his sudden and very convenient guilty plea and amazingly swift conversion to Jesus. His subsequent prison reform program which by the way netted him millions, proved that one has reason to be suspicious of amazing and totally out of character conversions to anything.
I’d be interested in knowing where you got your information that Mr. Colson’s prison program made him rich. You might have information I have not yet read.
Perhaps the NYT obit will help. It gives some hints of the amounts of money exchanging hands To be fair much of his money went into his causes, which to be honest again, he could draw upon. The article does not mention the governmental grants he got to run his programs. He used his government connections to get his programs funded.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/22/us/politics/charles-w-colson-watergate-felon-who-became-evangelical-leader-dies-at-80.html?pagewanted=all
Dale, with the great divider Obama in charge millions of people have lost their jobs, not gained jobs. Also millions of people have lost their homes due the non-leader Obama. Prices of food has doubled and fuel tripled in price. Obama-care is such a goat rope that libs don’t even want to talk about it. There is no budget, immigration policy, or economic policy because Obama doesn’t know how to lead. Only ones benefiting from Obama are fellow 1%ers celebrity types and folks that like welfare/food stamps.
Bonny, could you tell us when the housing bubble burst?
It must really bother you that GM, Chrysler and Ford are still in business in the USA.
Ford didn’t take a penny from the government; they did what the other two should have done an revamped their procedures. And they are better of for their efforts.
GM and Chrysler have yet to pay back their loans, even though the media would have you believe that they have. And both GM and Chrysler are hurting when it comes to sales and reputation. Just look at the complete failure of the Chevy Volt.
As for the housing bubble, from Wikipedia: “Housing prices peaked in early 2006, started to decline in 2006 and 2007, and reached new lows in 2012. On December 30, 2008 the Case-Shiller home price index reported its largest price drop in its history. Increased foreclosure rates in 2006–2007 among U.S. homeowners led to a crisis in August 2008 for the subprime, Alt-A, collateralized debt obligation (CDO), mortgage, credit, hedge fund, and foreign bank markets. In October 2007, the U.S. Secretary of the Treasury called the bursting housing bubble “the most significant risk to our economy.”
Question: Who controlled both houses of Congress in 08 when the largest price drop in history occurred? Could it have been their reckless policies that caused the bottom to drop out of the market? You bet.
And you think John McCain and Silly Palin would have done better.
If GM and Chrysler had folded Ford would have not been able to keep going as they all use the same suppliers. Most of the outsource suppiers would have folded. Would you be happier if they had folded and the several million people who are dependent on those salaries that support their families and that of many service industries that are dependent on them families spending?
I would bet a lot of money if they had folded you would be leading the lynch mob to hang President Obama.
Our problems are a combination of policies that were set in place before Obama took office and some even before Bush took office. The housing bubble burst can be attributed to a perfect storm of people losing their jobs in a time of two wars. Neither of which were funded. In my 68 years this is the first time that I can recall that the employment numbers went down.
EJ, wrong again (about Ford), and I’ve pointed this out to you before, so you KNOW you are wrong. You say Ford “revamped their procedures” and that’s all GM and Chrysler needed to do — and then they could have been virtuous and not accepted the help that was offered them by an evil Democrat.
But, as I’ve pointed out to you before, Ford had the good timing — or good luck — to have sold Jaguar, Aston Martin, and Land Rover at very good prices before the 2008 economic crash. So Ford had lots of cash on hand. Then, after the crash, to raise more money, Ford also sold Volvo. So Ford had important cash reserves that Chrysler and GM didn’t have.
You say Chrysler should have done what Ford did — but they didn’t have the companies to sell (nobody wanted Plymouth, Hummer, Saturn, or Pontiac), and they would have had to have Ford’s luck of selling BEFORE the meltdown.
I like Ford, and always have. I’ve owned more Fords than any other brand. But come off it, EJ. GM and Chrysler are not evil just because our society, you and I, we the people, helped them survive.
GM is alive and bin Laden is dead. We should thank the president.
Thanks for backing my assertion that Ford revamped itself in order to survive.
I never said GM and Chrysler were evil. But, they could have gone through bankruptcy, renegotiated their dealings with the unions, trimmed down, and survived just like Ford did. And they could have told the government to take a hike when it came along and forced them to make a car that nobody wants.
By the way, just because you point out something, doesn’t make you right or me wrong. That’s a little arrogant, isn’t it?
And bin Laden is dead because of the hard work of our intelligence services, our military, the efforts of President Bush and President Obama, and, first and foremost, the Navy Seals.
You’re joking, of course, when you say I backed your assertion. As you know, I said the pretty much opposite: Ford had more cash on hand because they sold a lot of assets before the crash. So Ford was better able to weather the storm. Was Ford working hard to build a better product? Of course.
No, you didn’t specifically say GM and Chrysler were evil because they accepted our nation’s help, but you mightily implied it, and have done so before.
As for bin Laden, you and I both know that president Bush 43 quickly lost his focus in Afghanistan, and when he turned his focus to an unnecessary War in Iraq, he let bin Ladan slip out of Tora Bora and into Pakistan. He geventually gave up the hunt, being too distracted by his self-inflicted mess in Iraq. Bush closed the bin Laden desk at the CIA.
During the presidential campaign in 2007-08, Senator Obama said he would make bin Laden a priority again, and pursue bin Laden in Pakistan if that’s where he turned out to be. Former Governor Romney criticized Obama for that statement. Romney said he would not violate Pakistani airspace to get bin Laden.
Once Obama was president he kept his promise and made the tracking of bin Laden a priority. Our Navy Seals did a splendid job once the president took a risk and gave the order for the mission.
If we had gotten bin Laden during Bush’s presidency, you would credit the Republicans — but since we got him because of Obama’s initiative, you still credit the Republicans.
You won’t give any credit to the president, who made it happen, because he is a Democrat.
EJ, I know that sometimes I sound partisan — and I really do think that the Republican Party is locked into some very bad and very harmful positions. And if you are honest, you will admit you also get very partisan. We have a real philisophical difference about what is best for the country that we both love. The hyper-partisanship is not not good for our country, EJ.
No, neither you nor I know what Bush did in his pursuit of bin Laden. Neither of us knows what went on behind closed doors, in the halls of the intelligence agencies, or in the military. And no one has ever confirmed that Bush closed the bin Laden desk at the CIA. For all we know, they may have let that leak in order to move the entire search into secrecy.
What we do know, from Obama’s own words, is that he worked off of the intelligence that was gathered under Bush in his search for bin Laden. We also know, from conveniently leaked info from the White House, that Obama was given 3 possible scenarios for getting bin Laden, and he took a full 18 hours to decide which one to go with. Yes, he gave the go-ahead, and he deserves the credit for that (and I have said that on many previous occasions). But, everything else was put in place by the intelligence agencies, the military, and, in particular, the Navy Seals.
If we had gotten bin Laden during the Bush administration, I would have said the same thing. The President deserves credit for approving the mission, but the real credit should go to the intelligence personnel and the Navy Seals, or whichever special forces conducted the mission.
Yes, you are a partisan. And, so am I. But, the difference between you and me is that I’m able to see the problems with my own party, whereas you very rarely say anything negative about yours.
As for what’s best for this nation, Obama and his progressive agenda are not. America will not survive another 4 years of his agenda. Sadly, he thinks he’s doing what is best for the country because he’s been tutored by hard line, left wing progressives just about all of his life. His policies have brought this country to its knees, and now we beg the world to take on our debt. That’s way Hillary Clinton and Timothy Geitner are in China right now: begging for more money and more time to pay them off.
The largest drop did not occur in a bubble. The groundwork for the colapse was set long before 2008. It was set in 2000 and compounded by the Republican economic plans of Bush.
Blaming the 2008 housing crash on the newly Democratic controlled house is akin to blaming the fire department for letting the house burn down after they arrive on scene to a fully engulfed house.
It started under Clinton with the underhanded dealings in Congress lead by Dodd, Franks, Waters and a few others and their control and influence over Freddie and Fannie. President Bush warned Congress of the problems several times during his administration, but they laughed his representatives out of the room.
Bonny, you may, the operative word being may, be right about some of the things you mention but one thing you are not right about is that President Obama is a divider.
Any divisions that exist have been created by people like you that have a white hot loathing unexplained by any facts about the man except one. You have done the dividing. You have promoted the strange and irrational accusations. You have bought into media sources that pander to your loathing. You have taken these smears and rebroadcast them on every site you could reach.
You are the divider.
Fascinating. That rant coming from one of the biggest dividers in these threads. But, this is a divided nation. Almost down the middle. Divided between those that care for the country and those that only care for themselves. I choose America. And that’s why I’m voting against the incumbent in November.
I guess Obama didn’t clean up the Republicans mess fast enough for you, I don’t think you realize how big a mess it was. I will be happy to cancel out your vote.
You have the right to vote for whomever you want. However, a vote for Obama is a vote for more debt, a soaring deficit, more government control, and more enslaved Americans. If that’s what you want, then go for it. If you want America to fail, then he’s your man.
Obama isn’t enslaving anyone. That’s offensive.
The enslavement is voluntary, but is being facilitated by the progressives in government. And Obama is the lead progressive.
The more people that become enslaved to the government, the more the will vote Democratic.
OMG EJ, stop reading the Loonycon comic books and read something intelligent and based in the real world of fact. Seriously, that crap you’re reading is just making you unhappy and afraid.
That’s how you “choose America” by spouting social, political, religious and historical nonsense and claiming President Obama is enslaving you?
President Obama did not divide this country. Before he had taken office, before he had signed one bill or given one presidential speech, you, Bonney, McConnell, Boehner, Limbaugh, Beck, Fox and the Tea Party stated your divisive goal quite clearly that your main job was to make sure President Obama was a one term president. Don’t support those that spew antagonism and smears against President Obama and than tell us “I choose America”
Divider-in-chief? Probably Rush Limbaugh, but Roger Ailes and Rupert Murdoch are right up there.
Yet USATODAY/Gallup says 94% of Americans were undivided about invading Afghaninistan
http://warisacrime.org/node/41595 – Image of child injured by bomb in Afghanistan.
At least I know I have a beam in my eye.
Okay, you want to change the topic. We weren’t talking about 2001, and we weren’t talking about Afghanistan. But yes, I was also in favor of our intervention in Afghanistan at that time, eleven years ago.
I was not in favor of Bush 43 losing his focus, letting bin Laden escape, and then turning his focus to an unnecessary and bungled war in Iraq.
But, eleven years ago, I was part of the 94% of Americans who supported our intervention in the Afghan civil war.
But why did you completely change the subject? Are you unable to stay on topic?
No, I don’t have to change the subject, nor do I have to insult people. You’re welcome to talk about whatever you like while you facilitate children being killed and tormented.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vShCqrZiK_0&feature=fvwrel – Taylor Swift “Eyes Open”
http://www.google.com/imgres?q=2012+images+of+injured+afghan+kids+images&hl=en&sa=X&rlz=1W1ADRA_enUS392&biw=1541&bih=690&tbm=isch&prmd=imvns&tbnid=rKptO-7Do6mN-M:&imgrefurl=http://thewe.cc/weplanet/asia/afghanistan/afghanistan.html&docid=H_PdjesAl2a_GM&itg=1&imgurl=http://thewe.cc/thewe_/images_5/—-/afghanistan/kill-team-offering-sweets-to-children.jpe&w=600&h=450&ei=quyiT6flCeje6QG7-tX6CA&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=834&vpy=269&dur=50&hovh=194&hovw=259&tx=117&ty=102&sig=106664418622770689323&page=3&tbnh=149&tbnw=201&start=42&ndsp=24&ved=1t:429,r:15,s:42,i:200
I would say the one that only care for themselves are the 1%ers and their toadies who defend them not the working class.
I remember the Impeach Obama movement before he had even taken the Oath of Office. Those are the me first people that you agree with.
Nah, I do not think she is right about any of that. All of what we are experiencing is due to the debacle that occurred before Obama took office. All of it is the ripple effects. And, of course the greed at the top of the job/food chain. We are the krill the behemoths feed upon.
Totally agree. Anyone who minimizes American citizens who cling to their guns and religion isn’t a divider. At all. Really.
Way to prove her point. Obama didn’t minimize them. He simply said in tough times people tend to cling to their religion and guns. Churches often times play up the fact that when times get tough, it is a great time to call on the lord, so if you have a problem with what Obama said, then you seem to have a problem with churches in general. Economically speaking in time of a downturn the price on things like guns and gold go up which we have seen happen. So what part of his statement wasn’t true, and which part of the truth do you have a problem with?
Here’s the quote: “And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations…”
He was referring to people in the heartland of America and stereotyped them in negative terms…as bitter victims left grasping at guns and religion as their only source of comfort…instead of encouraging their resolve to make it despite difficult circumstances.
You really don’t think that’s divisive? Really.
Wonder why he waited to make the quote on the west coast instead of western Pennsylvania…
But is he wrong? There isn’t anti-immigrant sentiments in this country? That’s divisive in itself.
He was simply stating a fact. When people are economically stressed they blame others and embrace the institutions that validate their blame.The NRA and conservative churches are doing exactly that.
To his credit most of his administration has been spent trying to initiate programs and policies focused on improving the economy especially for those he was speaking about. They continue to cling. As evidenced by many posts.
msallyjones tells the truth about Chuck Colson. He fooled a lot of people after his alleged conversion, but he remained at heart the trickster he’d been under Pres. Nixon. His seeming change of mind and soul was as deep as those who have been cured by various other preachers in the course of a moment or two.
Dale Kimball-Kocot, geeze with an attitude like that you might end up a spinster. No self agrandizing man could possibly put up with a mere woman thinking on her own.
It’s not the thinking on her own I’d be worried about, it’s the delusions about his job creation results.
Jonette Christian, if we are ever to have control of ‘Illegal Immigration’, we will have to really making it prohibitively expensive for employers who get caught hiring illegals. We don’t need high fences to keep them out. We don’t need to deport them, if they can’t find work, they will return home on their own dime.
I think if corporation are people (as our supreme court and Republican nominee seem to believe they are) it is time to start locking up their CEOs and Boards when they break the law. Give them a year in federal prison for each illegal they hire and confiscate their wealth (which is what we do to drug dealers). The problem would resolve itself.
They could all get religion in jail like Colson. LOL
Our real problem is work visas and the thousands of legal cheap foreign workers they allow into the country each year to take American jobs, most of them engineering, research and technical jobs.
And at the same time these workers work for much less than American workers thus driving down wages which is the main reason businesses hire them.
Keep in mind though that any product or service that came out of those corporations hiring those special work visa foreigners was sold to the public for the same price and the extra profit went to the corporation not to the buying public. Lower labor costs>greater corporate profit=transfer of wealth upward.
Everything has to go through the same litmus test these days, even illegal immigration. Does it directly benefit the top 1% of so called “Americans”, or doesn’t it? Their wealth is increasing exponentially thanks to cheap illegal labor. This would probably explain why we have only managed to build a few miles of fence on the Mexican border in the last 30 years when the border is 800 miles long! lol. Politicians love to talk tough on immigration during election seasons, but would never actually do anything to stop it. Like make it a class A felony to hire one. That would get them spanked and sent to bed with no supper by the fecal stains in Palm Beach with all the money! lol.
I think FICA taxes for these workers are drastically reduced as well. They are not eligible for unemployment, SS, or Medicare.
Actually, their base pay has to be the same as the base pay for an American. However, they do not have to give benefits or raises, nor do they have to pay into payroll taxes for them.
Jonette Christian, like Lou Dobbs, seems to have only one issue.
Karen Saum: Excellent point about the FICA tax. At the time, Social Security was a functional pay-as-you-go system, but the powers that be found a revenue generating loophole. Raise taxes but claim that the proceeds are being “saved in a trust fund”. Of course, the trust fund just transferred all the proceeds to the general fund via its “investment” in government bonds. So, voila, more money to spend on defense, etc.
Clever, eh. Of course, those IOUs are now due…
Ms. Saum–the Fica taxes are only assessed on the first $110,000 of income so any increase in those taxes must affect the lowest of income earners. On the other hand, those taxes are really just forced retirement savings for all workers. The poor received the money back at retirement.
Not forced savings, as the money isn’t saved.
And why did Social Security come into being?
Before the great depression the elderly were the poorest people in the country with most either starving to death, freezing to death or dying of heat exposure or dying of illness. After Social Security was created the elderly stopped being the poorest of the poor and started living out their final years in more security.
Republicans want to remove this safety net and why?
Do they not think that the elderly will once again become the poorest of the poor?
Republicans do not seem to care about our elderly anymore, is it because they cannot make any money of of or from the elderly?
if you remember,Bush wanted elderly to be able to invest a small percent of their social security privately, but the democrats stopped it. What a shame it would be if an elderly person had a private investment to leave to their family when they passed instead of kissing it goodbye and the government keeping it How many people pay into the system their whole life and die before they collect one cent???? I guess enough to make the democrats keep it that way!!! Goodbye Obummer it is time to call U haul
Just what we need, seniors dependent on the stock market. Are you really serious.
In the past 12 years the stock market has lost 45% of its worth twice. Do you want your retirement safety net based on the whim of the stock market.
What would you do if you retired on a down cycle and lost 45% of your retirement when you need it?
Renee overlock, Karen Saum, Dale Kimball-Kocot: good letters.
Bravo Dale for giving us the numbers and underscoring the political posturing of what I would call not a very good educational role model. Hope the university gets some letters regarding his lack of erudition. Would not recommend that anyone interested in innovative economic theory attend UM. Go elsewhere future economists. Somewhere you might actually be inspired. No Nobels coming out of that program. And, not one publication in his vitae on women and the economy. Of course if you want to know about tenements and economic theory then he is your guy.
I believe he is what might be referred to as an Affirmative Action hire. Universities have been pressured into hiring Conservatives even though their qualifications are not as impressive so that there is a diversity of views on campus. It is quite telling that he doesn’t mention the world economy in comparison to the US economy when the World Economy has embraced his views.
Karen, I hope you washed your mouth out with soap after trying to give Carter and Clinton credit for Reagans success!!!!
Reagan and success should not be used in the same sentence unless your talking about a prison sentence. GOP=the problem with USA
Since Reagan took office the economy has weaken, the wealth of the nation has been taken from the middle class and given to the richest 10% (mostly the richest 1%) and wages have stagnated except for the top 10% of workers.
I would not call that a success.
I am guessing that you failed US history and economics with a comment like that. Or you were raised by liberal parents either way I cant help but feel sorry for you. I am wondering if you think Obummer is doing a good job????? I bet Jimmy Carter is happy with Obama, now he no longer carries the title of the worst president in our history!!!
It is you who has fail US History and Economics.
While average wage growth has remained flat during the past thirty years, median wage growth only saw a slight increase of 11 percent, despite each individual worker’s contribution to GDP soaring by 59 percent, according to a study by the Economic Policy Institute
http://economyincrisis.org/content/study-shows-meager-increase-median-wages-1980
Or you could read these studies about wage stagnation.
http://www.economics.harvard.edu/faculty/goldin/files/GoldinKatz_Brookings.pdf
http://economics.mit.edu/files/586
Reagan raised taxes at least four times. If he was running in a Republican Party primary today they would reject him for being too liberal.
Lois MacGregor: It is wonderful to know that God is able to change the heart of men/women and bring peace to their lives. Chuck Colson would be the first to state that He never promised an easy life after accepting His Son as Saviour and Lord, but that He promises to be with us all the way. Some who are posting here are not fully aware of the Chuck Colson Ministry, evidently.
I am fully aware of what Colson’s prison ministry promoted. It was tossed out of many states because it violated the 1st Amendment. He used state funds to promote Chuck Colson’s religion. It offered special prison privileges only to inmates that accepted his version of salvation and he charged the states a bundle to buy into this scam.
Chuck Colson was a slug. You say “changed man” and I say bull. He just found another way to manipulate and connive.
Our real problem as Ms Christian states is legal foreign workers entering the US and taking US jobs under the various visa programs. There is the D-1 visa which allows foreign longshoremen to work in US ports. The H-1B visa brings in foreign technical and professional workers; H-2B visa non-agricultural workers and H-2A agricultural
workers.
Sixty-five thousand H-1B visas are given to companies every year, and 20,000 visas are given to foreign workers that earned their advanced degrees in U.S. universities. In 2010, there were nearly 500,000 foreign workers on H1B visas in the United States; 18 percent higher than in 2001. These are good paying engineering, research, technical and scientific jobs that Americans with advanced degrees are not getting because corporations can legally hire foreign workers. Corporations do not have to give these workers raises or benefits. They do not have to pay into SS or Medicare for them.
At the end of their 6 year stay corporations can hire a replacement at the same pay. Our government advertises in foreign countries and then does the immigration paperwork. Why would a corporation bother to hire American workers when they can get the government to hire cheap foreign labor for them.
It’s time to stop obsessing about illegal immigration and start worrying about how legal immigration is taking jobs away from Americans. Each one of those visa programs allows over 60,000 workers a year to enter the US: that’s over 240,000 American jobs a year going to legal foreign workers.
Dale Kimball-Kocot: Only an insecure person feels threatened when another offers an opinion with some facts to back it up. I am sick of women whining that they are being oppressed just because someone disagrees with them.
As for Obama’s record–are you better off today than you were four years ago? I know this woman isn’t. You may want to blame every one else in the world, but the truth is Obama’s policies and his lack of leadership and his hyper-partisanship have not helped Americans overall. He, himself, said if he couldn’t turn the economy around in three years, he wouldn’t deserve another term. I agree with him.
In no way is Ms Kimbal-Kocot implying she is threatened or oppressed nor is her letter whining. it’s sarcastic. She’s written a very funny blast at Mr Montgomery’s stupidities. She doesn’t seem very insecure either.
I’m sorry you are not doing well. How did President Obama cause this?
I got the sarcasm. I just don’t understand why she felt so provoked that she needed to use such a nasty tone to refute the gentleman’s sincere argument for why women are not better off under Obama. Or why you refer to them as “stupidities”–which they weren’t.
Thank you for your condolences. I think I already addressed in broad terms how the President is responsible for the poor economic climate.
Nah, you didn’t address the economy you just stated several times President Obama was a bad leader.
Okay: here is one of many issues to lay at Obama’s feet: The increase in our national debt in the 3 1/2 years of his presidency. The budgets he has proposed have escalated our debt to levels not seen over our entire history. Because of his fiscal irresponsibility, and that of Congressional Democrats, who refused to submit a completed budget for the entire two years they controlled all three branches of government, we have been running on temporary spending bills that have required repeated votes to raise the debt ceiling. One debt ceiling debate led to our credit rating being demoted for the first time ever. This is a failure in leadership.
It would be one thing if Democrats had proposed a budget which was then blocked by Republicans. But they haven’t. And Obama’s budget proposals have not even garnered the support of his own party.
Europe is trying to get out of the recession by cutting the debt. It isn’t working at all for them. France and England have just recently admitted as much and are changing economic policy to do essentially what we have been doing. Yes it creates debt, but it also creates jobs and spending that will eventually lead to a recovery.
A budget has been submitted every year. That’s another bit propaganda that hasn’t stuck. And it’s really old. The newest piece of spaghhetti being thrown up against the wall with great hopes of sticking is Obama’s sneaky and probably nefarious trip to Afghanistan where he probably did something really bad. If you’re going to spout Republican propaganda at least keep up with the program.
A budget has been submitted by whom?
The President. Sheesh, do I have to tell you everything.
You’re just repeating talking points. It’s really pathetic.
You are dissembling. Everything in this post has been factually refuted on these pages.
Do you know who said this:
That we are in the midst of crisis is now well understood. Our nation
is at war against a far-reaching network of violence and hatred. Our
economy is badly weakened, a consequence of greed and irresponsibility
on the part of some, but also our collective failure to make hard
choices and prepare the nation for a new age. Homes have been lost,
jobs shed, businesses shuttered. Our health care is too costly, our
schools fail too many — and each day brings further evidence that the
ways we use energy strengthen our adversaries and threaten our planet.
Yes.
Why is your opinion that you’re not being oppressed more valid than another’s opinion that she is being oppressed? You talk about insecurity, but don’t you think it’s arrogant to dismiss others because you disagree with them? Don’t you think it is arrogant to refer to your own opinion as “the truth”?
My opinion is usually based on evidence, thus making it more valid than one that isn’t. I read the letter by Mr. Montgomery and it was not in the least condescending. It would be arrogant to dismiss others just because I disagree with them, but not arrogant to refuse to give credibility to an argument that is specious. If my opinion is the truth, then it is not opinion–it is a fact. Are Americans better off than they were 4 years ago? By almost every statistical measure, they are not.
Montgomery was condescending. It was a political hack job to support the latest piece of spaghetti the Republicans have thrown up against the wall to see if it will stick. It started peeling off the wall the moment it hit. Statistics that anyone could look up gave lie to his propaganda that women had lost more jobs under President Obama than in any other time since Caesar or someone. Drivel. It deserved the sarcastic reply it got.
What statistics ?
I’m sorry, but I have to laugh at your comment. You’re just repeating Romney’s campaign tag line and we’re supposed to take you seriously? We’re supposed to believe you when you say you’re not condescending and that you consider facts and statistics? Okay, whatever.
Were American’s better off after 8 years of Bush?
America was better off through the majority of Bush’s term. His term included the longest sustained job growth in US history.
But it also included wars, the Patriot Act and NCLB, an increase in government through a whole new Homeland Security Department and Medicare Part D, and a failure to address immigration reform.
I don’t think the Bush presidency was terrific, but it was not as bad as the Obama presidency has been. Obama has continued military interference in the world, and the war in Afghanistan (although he has removed us from Iraq, which I support). He has offered no educational reform, he has increased the debt far beyond any other president. Credit is so tight in this country that businesses and individuals are suffering. The health care law is a mess no matter which political side you look at it from.
I can cut the President some slack for the economic collapse he has had to deal with. But his policies have not inspired confidence. You can make all the excuses you want for him, but I am not buying it.
Obama has gotten us out of Iraq and hopefully we will be out of Afghanistan by 2014 but the Republican’s have attack him for getting out of Iraq, McCain loudest amoung many, and they are fighting him on getting out of Afghanistan, again with McCain loudest amongst the many, and Romney has said that he will not get us out of Afghanistan if he is elected, at least that is is latest stance on Afghanistan.
Obama has proposed education reform, a relaxation of credit (especially for small business) and other things I bet we would both agree on but it has gotten stopped by filibusters in the Senate.
The Healthcare law is a mess because it did not go far enough. I did read a news report a couple days ago that reported that health costs have started to flatten the past year and some consumers are getting rebates from the healthcare insurance industry, unfortunately Maine is one of the few states that will not get any rebates.
I am better off now than I would have been if the country had elected McCain/Palin and followed more of the Republican/Bush economic doctrine.
There is no way you can know that.
And there is no way you can say differently
I can’t say differently, but I believe you would have been better off with McCain/Palin :)
I know our stock values are back up.
Posted by TheArmoTrader
on January 31st, 2012
While the unemployment rate has stayed stubbornly high, private sector job creation under Obama has actually been solid. To compare, lets take a look at private sector growth under George Bush vs private sector growth under Barack Obama. Since both started their presidencies on unfair recessionary conditions (Bush inherited the Dot-Com bubble bust while Obama inherited the Financial Crisis), we will only take a look at the data from the first 2 consecutive months private sector job creation went positive. I do not think this is being selective at all with the data because nobody expects a president to turn the economy around in less than 6 months.Under George Bush, the average private sector job creation per month was 151,000. Under Obama, it has so far been 143,000 per month. The best month under Bush was 366K, while under Obama it has been 261K. Given the hand Obama was dealt, the private sector job market has been impressive, especially when compared to Bush’s bubble-fueled job creation.
We can only imagine how many more jobs we’d have and how much farther we’d be on the way to recovery without obstructionist Republicans waging war on public education, particularly at the state and local levels.
I am also better off under the President’s policies. It is reasonable to say that McCain/Palin would not have done a good job because we know what policies they were proposing. The same policies that Bush/Cheney employed, the ones that got us into this mess. And now these are the same policies that Romney is promoting.
One really has to wonder if these Republicans have the brains to be embarrassed.
When Obama said he should turn the nation around in three years or not be re-elected he was under the misguided belief that the Republicans would work with him to help the country not try to sabotage him at every turn. That is the biggest mistake he made, believing the Republicans would put the country ahead of partisan bickering.
The Democrats over the past 3 years have a very poor record of proposing any legislation designed to garner bi-partisan support. From the moment he was elected, Obama has used language condemning segments of the American population as being greedy, uncaring and irresponsible. He has polarized this nation instead of using his position to bring healing and encouragement.
I don’t like playing the blame game on who is blocking what. The truth is there are sincere differences of opinion on policy. It would be nice if we could stop the ridiculous accusations and posturing and have an honest debate. Look at these comments on this board: Republicans want to starve and freeze the elderly by ending social security; Obama is a socialist who wants to destroy America–
I would encourage everyone not to engage in this type of language.
There have been several pieces of legislation that has garnered as many as 59 votes in the Senate but have been blocked by the small Republican Minority that is unwilling to negotiate nor compromise on any issue.
In fact I have seen articles saying that a measure failed to pass the senate with a 51, 52, 53 or more votes in favor.
They would have garnered 59 Democrat caucus votes–but not one Republican. Because they were not bipartisan. When Republicans have offered ideas, those ideas have been dismissed with the accompanying bashing of Republicans as being evil, and only out for the rich. Why should the Republicans work with Democrats?
So the leader of the Republicans says not once, not twice but three times the Republican goal is to make President Obama a one term president and you interpret this as being non-partisan and eager to work with Democrats. Riiiiiiiiiiiiight. LOL
The Senate is not supposed to be run by the minority, especially when the minority is unwilling to compromise.
I’ll tell you what. Show me examples of Republican willingness to compromise and I’ll show you examples of Democratic willingness to compromise and we’ll see who runs out of examples first.
What isn’t sincere is your re-telling of the past 3 years. Bi-partisan support is indicative of nothing. Republican leaders explicitly stated their number 1 goal was not to turn the economy around, but to deny Obama a second term. Denying passage of Obama’s legislative goals was purely political and had little to do with ideology as much of the legislative proposals including traditionally Republican ideas and aspects. Just because they didn’t vote for these things, doesn’t mean they weren’t moderate or bi-partisan.
They never said: We don’t want to turn the economy around. We just want to make sure Obama is a one-term president.
That is your partisan interpretation. As is your statement that the Democrat Legislative proposals included “traditionally” Republican ideas and aspects. That notion out there is just pure spin. Similarity is not congruence.
The reason Republicans want Obama to be a one-term president is because he has been a poor leader with policies that have not improved the lives of Americans as a whole.
“The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.”
— Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), in an interview with theNational Journal, describing his goal in retaking the Senate.
Fox News July 2011: On Fox News Sunday, Bret Baier asked him if he stands by his previous statement that “the single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term President.” McConnell confirmed that his goal remains unchanged.
And why do Republicans want Obama to be a one-term president? Because they don’t agree with his vision for America. They don’t agree with his policies. They believe his policies are bad for the economy and for average Americans.
Right. Back to the Gilded Age. Bust the unions, cut wages, remove child labor laws, import more cheap foreign labor, repeal OSHA and the EPA, put prayer in schools, cut education funding, fund private schools but first and foremost get rid of Planned Parenthood. Brilliant
Uh oh, you’ve been reading those DNC press releases again….
No I’m listening to LePage on Child Labor Laws, Scott Walker on unions, Rick Santorum on prayer and schools and Romney on Planned Parenthood. Sheesh listen to your own people.
Conservatives like thegreatwandini have a remarkable ability to not hear what their political leaders say or not remember anything their political leaders say or do.
Amazing
You know, I was thinking about your point this morning. My loyalty as a conservative is not tied to any particular candidate. It is tied to a collection of ideas that I believe in firmly. I am as frustrated as the next person about what some Republicans say and do. But there is not much option on who to vote for when the Democrats continue to pursue policies that I cannot agree with.
I respect your adherence to your conservative beliefs as you respect my beliefs but the truth is that Obama has had more resistance then any president in our history. I can think of no other president that has had to fight for filibuster proof majorities in almost everyting he has tried to do.
speech that Senator McConnell gave at the Heritage Foundation two days after the 2010 election: “GOP leader’s top goal: Make Obama one –term president.”
The ultimate goal of any political party is to get its candidates elected. Period.
Oh, dear Wandi, that doesn’t sound very bipartisan.
So you’re going to say that Obama is the partisan one and that I’m the partisan one? You’re not being honest.
The easiest way for Obama to defeat a Republican initiative is to agree with it. The Republicans would break the legs trying to backpeddle from their own idea.
It would be funny if it wasn’t so serious.
How would you like us to interpret these statements in a non-partisan way?
That is so true. Many of his proposals were originally Republican ideas. The Republicans continually fought against their own ideas, because they wanted to him to fail. They refused to work with him in any way.
It is difficult to argue with the facts, no matter how some will try.
&&&&&
Review a few of the Republican initiatives included in legislation passed by Congress:
Includes personal responsibility incentives: Allows health insurance premium to vary based on participation in proven employer wellness programs(Sources: H.R. 3468, “Promoting Health and Preventing Chronic Disease through Prevention and Wellness Programs for Employees, Communities, and Individuals Act” (Castle bill); H.R. 4038, “Common Sense Health Care Reform & Accountability Act” (Republican Substitute bill); H.R. 3400, “Empowering Patients First Act” (Republican Study Committee bill); H.R. 3970, “Medical Rights & Reform Act” (Kirk bill), “Coverage, Prevention and Reform Act”)
Advances medical liability reform through grants to States: Provides grants to States to jump-start and evaluate promising medical liability reform ideas to put patient safety first, prevent medical errors, and reduce liability premiums.(Sources: S. 1783, “Ten Steps to Transform Health Care in America Act” (Enzi bill); H.R. 3400, “Empowering Patients First Act” (Republican Study Committee bill); H.R. 4529, “Roadmap for America’s Future Act” (Ryan bill); S. 1099, “Patients’ Choice Act” (Burr-Coburn, Ryan-Nunes bill))
Extends dependent coverage to age 26: Gives young adults new options.(Sources: H.R. 4038, “Common Sense Health Care Reform & Accountability Act” (Republican Substitute bill); H.R. 3970, “Medical Rights & Reform Act” (Kirk bill))
Allows automatic enrollment by employers in health insurance: Allows employee to opt-out.(Sources: House Republican Substitute; H.R. 3400, “Empowering Patients First Act” (Republican Study Committee bill); “Coverage, Prevention, and Reform Act” )
Mechanisms to improve quality.(Sources: H.R. 4529, “Roadmap for America’s Future Act;” S. 1099, “Patients’ Choice Act;” H.R. 3400, Republican Study Group bill; S. 1783, “Ten Steps to Transform Health Care in America Act” (Enzi bill))Community Mental Health Centers. The President’s Proposal ensures that individuals have access to comprehensive mental health services in the community setting, but strengthens standards for facilities that seek reimbursement as community mental health centers by ensuring these facilities are providing appropriate care and not taking advantage of Medicare patients or the taxpayers. (Source: H.R. 3970, “Medical Rights & Reform Act”)
Well he did save the country’s economy from going off a cliff. There is no question about that.
He was mistaken in wasting so much time sincerely trying to work with the Republicans.
Thank goodness he has seen the light.
The recovery’s been weak these last few years. But if the federal government hadn’t reacted to the financial crisis the way it did, things would have been a lot worse.That’s the conclusion of a new research note from Fitch Ratings, in collaboration with Oxford Economics, which argues that the country’s economic growth would have been even lower in 2010 and 2011 without the stimulus policies meant to combat the Great Recession.In fact, the Fitch report argues, “the U.S. might still be mired in a recession” if not for the various stimulus measures enacted by Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama.
#####