BPA health problems
As a citizen of the United States, accompanied by countless residents of Maine, I wish to thank my state legislators for supporting strong public health laws in Maine which protect against toxic chemicals linked to rises in cancers and other serious health problems.
As a doctor, I thank our legislators for supporting the Kid Safe Products and the phasing out of toxic BPA.
It’s time to rally in favor of the Safe Chemicals Act of 2011 currently in the U.S. Congress. Our voices call out to Sens. Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins, asking them to co-sponsor this bill which would reform the Toxic Substance Control Act.
We support this effort which would require manufacturers to produce products free of toxic chemicals which harm our health and the environment.
With the Safe Chemicals Act, our senators can put limits on toxic chemicals using the best available scientific information. With these preventative measures we can help reverse the rising rates of diabetes, asthma and learning disabilities.
Carcinogens and dangerous chemicals are transferred from a pregnant mother to her baby. Residents of Maine are being called upon to speak out in favor of controls which will ensure the health of Americans and those abroad where these products are marketed. Our water, farms and fisheries depend on our voices and action directed to Congress. The chemical industry must enact changes and protect our communities.
I urge Maine residents to contact Sens. Snowe and Collins asking them to support reform of the Toxic Substances Control Act, by co-sponsoring the Safe Chemicals Act of 2011.
Betsy Weiss
Orono
Sad day for farmers
What does it take to put more Maine food on Maine plates?
First, it takes farmers. Folks who are dedicated to the land. Folks who work from dawn to dusk, growing the food that nourishes us.
And it takes a community of people who support these farmers. People who go out of their way to buy their products, go to the farmers market, invest in a community-supported agriculture share, drop off empty jars and save egg cartons.
On Monday morning, May 7, one of our farming families, Darthia Farm in Gouldsboro, lost their barn to a fire. This barn contained all their livestock and more than 450 bales of hay and straw. Bill Thayer tried to save his three draft horses and was driven back by the intense heat. His wife Cynthia tried unsuccessfully to let 20 sheep out of the burning barn and burned her eye.
The Thayers have been farming in Maine since 1970s and have mentored many young people. They are of the age when passing the farm on and slowing down was on the horizon, and they need our help. They need the support of this community.
Please make a donation by visiting www.givefoward.com/darthiafarmpheonixfund or mailing Darthia Farm Pheonix Fund, Bar Harbor Bank & Trust, P.O. Box 159, Winter Harbor 04693.
Cheryl Wixson
Stonington
Civil union
In November 2012 we will be asked if we favor a law allowing marriage licenses for same-sex couples that protects religious freedom by ensuring no religion or clergy be required to perform such a marriage in violation of their religious beliefs. There are some who think everything a gay couple needs is available with a civil union and therefore gay couples don’t need marriage. However, there is no such thing in the state of Maine as a “civil union.”
My partner and I want to proclaim our love and commitment before God, the state of Maine and our friends and family in a marriage ceremony, but what we have available to us instead is the Domestic Partnership Registry. That registry has little in common with marriage.
There is an unequal burden of proof of the domestic partners’ relationship and their rights are severely limited. Not only must the two parties have lived together in Maine for 12 months before they are granted this partnership, something not required for legal marriage, but the registry “allows individuals to have rights of inheritance as well as the right to make decisions regarding the disposal of their deceased partners remains.” (Maine Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Instructions and Information for the Domestic Partner Registry in Maine, p.1). That’s all. It only addresses matters in relation to death. That is not marriage.
My partner and I want a life together. We want marriage.
David Cox
Orono
What’s the matter with Colby?
Most colleges pay huge fees to get famous people as commencement speakers. This month, Colby College in Waterville will feature former Prime Minister Tony Blair.
Blair has become a multimillionaire on the speaking circuit, but no amount of self-serving rewriting of history will ever erase his true legacy: death and destruction inflicted upon millions. War is the greatest source of violence and human rights abuses in the world. A war of choice is the gravest possible betrayal of our military. If there is a greater evil than choosing to wage an unnecessary war, I don’t know what that could be.
What can Blair offer to the graduates? Tips on how to sex-up evidence so lies can appear as truth? For those who are still paying the price of Blair’s choice, it is like witnessing war crimes all over again.
How shameful it is that after 4 years and over $200,000 tuition, nobody at Colby seems to know the difference between “famous” and “infamous.”
Carole Whelan
Military Families Speak Out
Hope
Electoral fraud
Congress has done nothing significant for the average American in decades. Politicians on both sides stall and mislead, while silently assisting the 1 percent. Romney trumpets his hallowed skills in creating jobs, even though his millions were made firing people. Obama “reforms” health care but you’ll still be paying through the nose. He “leaves Iraq,” yet we have to pay for 100,000 mercenaries left to guard Exxon’s new oil fields. Thanks.
Both parties are deeply corrupt. The elections are a joke and politics immaterial — the house always wins. Underpaid and underemployed Americans, expensive wars, complex tax breaks and loopholes, manipulated fuel prices and bailouts — these are immensely profitable for the few, so don’t hold your breath for change. Any benefit to we the people will be coincidental at best.
But have no fear. Off we’ll go in November, anxious to vote, sure our man is the answer. The Occupiers are right on. Bigger things need to change if this country is to become economically viable again, with a rich and growing middle class. Things well beyond a mottled system of oligarchy disguised as democracy.
Dennis Lopez
Rockport
Now its time to beat on Tony Blair, GW is old news, very desperate…..Move on people,,…
Blair, Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and the rest of the pack are all war criminals. Our war in Iraq was an act of aggression in the eyes of the Geneva Convention. History may be written by the winners but truth will always find the light. If you think we won over there, you have a different definition of victory than humanitarians.
Don’t forget to add Bill Clinton and Obama to that list.
Yeah, isn’t Obama still holding prisoners without trial in Guantanamo?
And I voted for him and probably will again!
Where have you been? The trials started last month.
My bad: buried in work. Strikes me as an 11th hour, election year gesture considering what was promised in the campaign.
They forget about all the liberals who voted on going in….Hillarious…They are quiet now…LOL..
Correction, Barak Obama was against invading Iraq. Get your facts straight.
All wars, properly fought, are wars of aggression. A war of passivity is a recipe for defeat…
Don’t forget Colin Powell and all of Congress that voted to proceed.
You move on. The rest of us will hang in until these war criminals are brought to justice.
Give me a break…THIS is what ultraliberals spend their time thinking about???
I am sort of curious. When you bring these “war criminals” to justice will you add Pelosi to the list. She knew about waterboarding well before the New York Times.
You assert that water boarding is a war crime.
According to some leftists. I just want to know how consistent your accusations are.
So your question was either hypothetical or rhetorical.
I was exploring the limits of what you think a war crime is. Though I admit I do have concerns about it. Just as I have concerns about Obama’s take no prisoner policy. He doesn’t want to create more problems by putting prisoners in gitmo… so he doesn’t capture them, he just sends a drone strike. Solves the immediate problem but gains no intel. Politically expedient assassination. Is that a war crime? Especially when civilians are killed?
According to our military after WWII waterboarding was a war crime. We ( the Allies) sentenced Japanese officers to death for War Crimes for waterboarding US and Allied servicemen.
Not exactly leftists back then.
We sentenced Japanese officers to death for using waterboarding on our servicemen. It was a war crime in the 1940’s but now it isn’t?
I wanted to see Cheesy’s take on it.
Let’s see on one hand we have individuals who started a war of aggression on a sovereign nation based on a pack of lies which killed hundreds of thousands of people, versus being briefed on an illegal torture program and being expressly forbidden from talking about what she’d heard. False equivalence much?
She was in on it.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ex-cia-counterterror-chief-pelosi-lied-about-waterboarding/2012/04/30/gIQAQFGtrT_story.html
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2012/05/01/confirmed_pelosi_lied_about_cia_briefing_on_waterboarding
False equivalence. You mean if you keep a war crime a secret its ok??
Angry much???? LOL.. Move on buddy.
Easy on her, things may be a little cloudy on the island this morning…..
The fact that you’re not angry that thousands of innocent people died as a result of this smooth talking con mans’ support for the pack of lies that stated the Iraq war, reveals a lot about your character. War criminals should never feel safe from justice, no matter how many years have passed. So you can move on all you want, Bud, with your blinders firmly in place in a world where you would rather have no accountability, ever for mass murderers. The rest of us will ignore your misguided advice, and keep our eyes trained on the war criminals, thanks very much.
You do that, let me know how it works out for you…LOL…
What are you like 12 years old? LOL???
Good retort….Really???
Getting PM Blair is a coup for Colby as one of the great leaders in modern history. Wished he had been at my graduation.
Colby is demonstrating atrocious judgement by having this War Criminal speak at their commencement. It’s despicable that someone can help facilitate an unnecessary war based on a pack of lies and then profit from all the death and carnage theycreated by going on a speaking tour. Of course he’ll be promoted as a “great leader” by the right wing extremists and war profiteers who loved Blairs ‘ penchent for continual war. This guy is an intellectual lightweight, another smarmy apologist for the 1%. What was Colby thinking?
Dennis Lopez – You were on a roll until you mentioned that the Occupiers were “right on”. The only thing the Occupiers are “right on” is the wrong side.
So the messenger is more important than the message?
If you don’t think there is a problem in this country then you are on the side-lines with blinders on while Occupiers see quite clearly. Definitely on the side of workers and those who have been taken to the cleaners by sellers of Dr. John’s snake oil.
Didn’t say that at all. In fact, I agree with most of the things Mr. Lopez wrote. But, to say that the Occupiers are right on is so far off that it’s sad. The Occupiers are a group of disjointed and confused takers. They are not on the side of workers. And they are the ones being used by the so-called cleaners to deflect from the real mess that the cleaners have gotten us into. The Occupiers are nothing more than pawns, and they don’t even realize it.
So you’ve talked to some who Occupy? And they told you they do not care about workers? Don’t know about others but no one has suggested I Occupy in a certain way or say certain things. I say what I have to say. And, listen to what others have to say. I want an America that actually cares about THE PEOPLE, not the corporations. That is what I care about.
I am frightened by people who claim to speak for “THE PEOPLE” especially when they do it in capital letters.
You are very good at twisting words Cheesy…. reminds me of….. oh, never mind. Of course I do not speak for anyone but myself. But I see no one walking any talk about WE THE PEOPLE. Have to yell it out these days cause no one is listening much to us.
Twist the words and talk about something else. Anything to avoid the actual topic and problem at hand.
momma used the term not I. Why should everything be from your frame of reference. Can’t you listen to what another says?
You should ask yourself that same question. When you misinterpret what someone communicates to you, then they reiterate their point but you still maintain that they hold some sort of different belief, you’re twisting things. To me, that shows desperation to avoid the real issues at hand.
My understanding is that the Occupy people represent THE PEOPLE.
An obvious reference to “We the People” as opposed to the distortion of someone like say Mitt Romney who believes somehow corporations ought to be including in that interpretation. The comment never said that the Occupy protestors are the exclusive representation of the “people”, but that America should have representatives serving the people and not those representing other interests. Your understanding seems purposefully flawed.
‘Purposefully’, ‘desperate’ and ‘weird’, you have him nailed . I do admire your patience.
Him.
But the Occupiers did. Often… especially in this forum. Now they never did? Really?
Keep doing those flip flops. Anything to avoiding commenting on the issue.
The comment said ” I want an America that actually cares about THE PEOPLE, not the corporations. That is what I care about.” That’s miles from what you’re trying to pin on the comment.
Honestly, what are you trying to do? It’s weird and pathetic. Why engage in a discussion if you’d just prefer to distort what others believe in order to demonize them? It doesn’t even add up.
Here is an article that I think sums up my thinking about Occupy. Nice to know others see it this way. http://www.alternet.org/story/155325/occupy_isn%27t_about_electing_democrats–it%27s_about_exposing_a_broken_system/
I’ve read through many different lists of OWS demands and have found one thing in common: They’re socialistic to the core. We’re Americans, and we will fight against Socialism.
I read through your article. And I looked around the site. Sorry, but the progressives don’t have America in mind. They only think about themselves.
Dennis Lopez–Thanks for the reality check. One thing we can all do is look a little deeper for our news and information than the mainstream media. The occupiers have discovered many truths about our governance that you will never find on tv or Time magazine or any of the major newspapers. The occupiers understand that when 400 people “earn” more than 150,000,000 in our country–something is amiss.
In my experience, at least 10% of our population are hopeless slackers more interested in goofing off than being productive.
So I would say 30,000,000 deserve to “earn” jack squat, which is less than most working adults.
Rather than always blame the super rich (whose wealth is really irrelevant, as taxing it away wouldn’t really help at all), why don’t we ask why so many lay-abouts are whining about their situation. And please don’t claim all poor are hard working: I grew up in an extended family where evidence to the contrary was everywhere. And the ran in similar circles.
His numbers were off. 400 people earn more than 150,000,000 Americans. If you cannot see a problem with that, you need to re-examine your priorities and values.
Jealous Eh.
No, scared. Scared for the viability and chance of survival of my beloved country.
It is not a danger when people do well. Even very well. It IS a danger when people say they have no right to. It is more of a danger when people say they want to take it and pass it around to make things “equal”.
Your absolutely right Cheesecake, it is no danger when people do well. I do think that it is a real danger when they are born well though. People who have earned their fortunes tend to be more conscience of the people around them that helped along the way. People who merely picked the right name on the crib are a totally different can of peas. Part of the problem these days is that a lot of the mass fortunes that people are sitting on in this country is inherited wealth, not earned. The Waltons of Arkansas come to mind. They are now worth $93 billion, or 93,000 million and they can’t afford to give their serf’s a raise? I had the distinct displeasure of being around inherited wealth when I worked for a custom yacht builder. Most of them felt that all employees are either lazy or stupid. They have money because they are smarter than everyone else. They have little to no empathy for anyone other than themselves. They will spend $10 million on a new yacht, but couldn’t be bothered to huck a can of soup out the window of their Bentley at a homeless veteran. Unless they thought they could hit them in the head and have something to laugh about down at the yacht club. Back in the day when the factory owner roamed the plant talking to employees and offering words of encouragement, things went a lot smoother. Now, the factory owners live in another country and are hundreds of middle managers away from the factory floor and only look at the numbers flowing into their accounts every month, with little to no understanding of the plight of those who make them the money. I know that you take care of your people, we have had this conversation in the past. I do as well. But, we have a growing number of people who do not, and that is part of the problem. I would like to see the state come out with the actual number of Mainers who receive welfare, of one form or another, that go to work everyday. They just work for people who inherited their wealth, not earned it.
I do not begrudge anyone for a moment how they legally make their living. If I save for my child a healthy sum as I push him into the future why is it the governments right to take from him what I have gained?
Now Cheesecake, you have never heard me advocate the Robin Hood approach to solving our problems. I hope that you leave your kids a bundle and the government leaves their hands off it. But, I also hope that you give them the knowledge that you did not accumulate that wealth by yourself. You had help from your employees. That charity should be done anonymously, or it does not count and is done for the wrong reason. That America can only be a great place to live, if it is a little great for everyone. Those are the things that I will take the most pride in leaving my kids when I am gone. The money will help too though! lol. The only inheritance that I got from my old man was a funeral bill! lol.
I had help from my employees. True. I hope they believe I am fair to them, but they carry none of the risk. Their homes were not wrapped up in the success or failure of the business. They do not sign personal guarantees on every new investment. I bet they don’t know that feeling in the pit of their stomach as you and I do. That has to be worth something. The comfort of knowing that the growing ulcer need not be genetic and not be passed on to my kid is really not too much to ask.
Charity I think like you, best be anonymous but neither can it be compelled.
Eager to dismiss, eh?
easily done.
There is no indication of jealousy whatsoever, so to make that leap is intellectually laziness.
So, self-interest plays no role in the the posters comment? Altruism only. You don’t know people very well.
That’s your opinion. But it’s telling of your own character if you assume that jealousy is the issue with anyone who has a problem with economic growth serving mainly the very wealthy. It’s also very lazy because it shows you don’t want to have a real discussion. No one is talking about taking all the money away from the rich and redistributing it in equal parts to everyone. What people are taking about is a system that is leveled and doesn’t prefer a particular set of people. Many believe that the system is tilted to favor the rich as they’re seeing their wealth growth, while the vast majority has seen their shrink or remain stagnant. They believe the system is inherently unfair and that ultimately hard work isn’t being rewarded. So when you say they’re just jealous, it’s essentially like claiming anyone who denounces steroid use in sports is just jealous of success.
Very good !!!!!!
Plenty of people on this board are talking about taking from the rich… You just choose to ignore it.
I guess I don’t understand why you think everything has to be ‘fair”. As far as I know things have never been “fair”. Hard work alone is rarely ever rewarded unless it is accompanied by working smarter. I don’t think that has ever changed either.
The fact that it appears to you that success is analogous to steroid use does sound a bit jealous. How are things going for you?
I’ve been around enough and read enough to know that as soon as the unemployment rate falls blow say, 7.5%, people like you will blow away. In the meantime you are being used by the Democrat political machine to solidify their hold on the economic system.
I didn’t say success is analogous to steroid use. I said an unfair system is. I used steroid use as an example because we love athletes who succeed on their merits and not through cheating. Same goes for success. Do we hate Steve Jobs? No, we understand that he worked hard during his lifetime and earned what he had. That’s different compared to what we think of someone who increases profits for a company by developing a new fee to pass on to consumers, for example.
And “people like me”? God, you have a disgusting attitude. I want everyone to have the chance to succeed or fail on the merits. You can paint that as some else all you want and you can smear my character all you want, but again, you’re just demonstrating your intellectual laziness.
That’s not what you want at all in my opinion. If you wanted people to succeed or fail on their merits then you and the government would get out of the way. You just want to define what “success” is by your moral code and set what is “fair” by your rules. You want to define what “merits” are. You want to decide what constitutes a “level playing field”. That’s not only intellectually lazy it’s authoritarian.
And we swing back once again to your paranoia and/or distrust of people and their motivations. Anyone who has a different opinion than you is just jealous. When I tell you my opinion, you refuse to accept it on its face and attach all sorts of dark and hidden meanings to it. It’s weird and unfounded.
Ok… All you really have are personal attacks.
“Again we swing back to your….” I’ve never conversed with you before have I?
I was refering to your dismissive “jealousy” comments. You began with baseless assertions and you’ve concluded with them. That’s not an attack, that’s, as a matter of fact, what you’re doing. When you convert a person’s words (that were very clear and without subtext) into something dark and devoid of reality, that is being paranoid.
There is no reason for you to engage in conversations with others if you’re just going to assume and create these horrible intentions that don’t exist. You claim all I have are personal attacks, but you can’t even have a discussion on the merits of an argument without baseless questioning a person’s character.
Nice evasion. Have we conversed before? You act like it.
Supposedly no evasion and yet you ignore what I said. I was referring to my initial comment of you dismissing (the jealousy comments) others due to your paranoia, or whatever is the proper term for baselessly assigning others with dark intentions.
Cheese,
I have sacrificed a lot of money to pursue a career in educating our future. I will never earn the money I did as a teacher that I made in the private sector. It is not a question of jealousy for me. I just wish that I had students whose parents could work a full time job and provide the basic necessities in life. Since our current system will not allow that, I will continue advocating for a system that will allow that. If you think that is jealousy, you need to re-examine your own priorities.
What does it mean that 400 earned more than 150 million? Would it be better somehow for everyone else if that 400 earned more than 100 million or 50 million? How does that change priorities? Would it somehow all be ok if we all earned the salary of a middle school teacher? Help me out here.
Cheese,
Outlandish greed at the top is stealing money from the Working class. Study after study has shown that this income inequality has hurt the American workers and benefited a small handful of the insanely wealthy. We are advocating for allowing the American workers to keep more of the profits derived from their labor. This mentality that workers do not deserve fair and adequate compensation but the leisure class at the top deserve million dollar pay days does hurt American families and directly hurts our children. I am not saying that we should all earn the same, but that we need to return to a more equitable society where our concern is the advancement of all people, not just the gilded few.
To see how it hurts the workers read the following paper: http://www.epi.org/publication/ib331-ceo-pay-top-1-percent/
I scanned your link. So, Ok I understand what wage disparity is. I understand the math of it, except the options included part.
I guess I don’t understand how Robert Iger (CEO of Disney) http://finance.yahoo.com/q/pr?s=DIS+Profile making $18.5 million annually(How much of his salary is stock?) makes a whole lot of difference to the income of a custodian at EMMC.
But for arguments sake… lets give Iger a salary of $1 million leaving $17.5 million to be shared among HIS 156,000 full time employees… $112 each raise. Might be nice as a bonus but that is a $2.15 per week for a year.
I don’t understand how the share the wealth concept is going to make an appreciable difference.
That’s why I think this is no more than a political “eat the rich”, stir up the peasants entertainment show, that benefits another political class.
You do not understand how more employees making more money will buy more products producing more opportunities for more workers who are in turned paid living wages who then go on to buy more products that will be made by more workers being paid living wages that will then go on to buy more products that are produced by yet more workers being paid living wages. You do not understand how that would benefit our entire community including the janitor at EMCC? We know that money giving to workers actually goes back to their communities and has a money multiplier effect. It is really a time tested economic theory. And the difference between it and trickle down is that it actually works.
Everything you say makes good sense. More money spent does exactly that. It grows on itself building a bubble as it always does. Nice in the classroom but I wonder about your methodology. How would you propose the wealth transfer?
Do you think leaving more money in taxpayers pocket would help?
A family of four making $40,000 paid federal tax of $1,924 in 2001. In 2010 they paid no federal income tax and received a check for $2,523 for a tax cut of $4,447. There was no “trickle down”. There were substantial cuts for all. Seems talking points of “tax cuts for the rich” and “trickle down” have overshadowed the fact that there have been substantial cuts for all.
Jealousy is the least of the problem when ALL of the numbers concerning income and opportunity point to the largest redistribution of wealth in the country’s history… upward. It is a cheap argument to just blurt out, “jealous,” dismissing the PLAIN TRUTH. You can do better but seem unable to get over your partisan mental block to the facts.
And once you are able to accept the documented facts surrounding inequality, you might be able to delve into the structural benefits in tax code and investment strategies that ONLY the wealthy can take advantage of to increase the holdings.
And the “self interest” argument below is weak as well. Of course I want to provide for my family, out of self interest that likely plays out of altruism as well. I expect others want to provide for their families also, and it is altruistic of me to want a level playing field so that they can have the same opportunities to do so. When success comes of stepping on those below you to advance I don’t care how smart or hard one works. It is still cheap and selfish. And of course not every successful, wealthy individual came about their wealth by exploitation… but fairness in a society that is supposed to be guided by laws that protect its citizens does include fairness in taxation. Seems I recall some folks a couple hundred years ago complaining to their monarch about fairness in taxation… You too easily blow that off, cheesecake.
I see what you believe is the PLAIN TRUTH.
My question that nobody seem to be able to answer is… How do you “level the field”?
Tax code? The bottom 50% pay no income tax now. Do you reduce taxes on the next tier so that even more pay less? Only 40% pay?
Do you confiscate wealth and pass it around? The problem is obvious (other than the fact you are a Keynsian :) ) Not enough money floating around the economy.
How do you get it moving? Simply saying things aren’t fair sounds more like whining than an actual solution.
How do you level the playing field…? By making the tax code progressive. It is moderately so now, until you get to the upper levels… then it is regressive. The numbers show that, nothing else. So, yes, it is the plain truth.
The bottom income level don’t pay much in taxes because they don’t make enough because wages have been flat for so long… Confiscate wealth…? Where has the wealth gone since 1979? Upwards, upwards, upwards… another plain truth.
Thanks for pointing that out–I have corrected my severe underestimation of the problem.
Those that claim it won’t make a difference if we tax these folks or that say we are jealous either do not understand the severity of the inequality and how quickly the inequality has progressed, or, they are guarding their own hoard.
Maybe you would like to correct your statement about your reference to “earn” which was used to mislead everyone to think you were talking about income. Of course as I stated the top 400 earned 1.31% of the income reported on tax returns in 2008.
Hey, I’m no mind reader: just going by what WAS posted.
And no, I actually don’t care if one person made more than the rest of us combined as long as those who worked hard made enough to live.Wealth is not a zero sum game.
The problem is those who work hard do not have enough to live and it is the parasites at the top that make it so. Currently in Illinois, machinists are going on strike because they do not want an 8 dollar an our pay cut (they make anywhere from $26k to $56k a year at the top end). They agreed to no pay raises in ‘lean’ years recently and have been able to not only make the company survive but thrive going on to record profits during the same time. Now however the company wants to continue to freeze their wages, require them to pay more of their health care, and eliminate their pension. Meanwhile the CEO just went from 3 million a year to 16 million a year. My personal philosophy is any time anyone in the company makes more than $500k a year, there is room to give more to the workers making less than $30,000 a year.
You assume that overall, if CEOs take less pay, the rest will go to the workers. I think that’s likely not true at all. The additional savings will go to the owners (shareholders).
I don’t have any problem with that at all. As long as all their income is taxed at the same effective rate as the rest of us.
Actually the top 400 earnings from the last IRS data released for 2008 show that the top 400’s income was 1.31% of all income reported on the 142 million tax returns that year. But of course the first post to an article sets the tone of all the replies. “kc” with her/his quotemarks knew exactly what she/he was doing and by her/his posting history know everything about gettting the first reply.
True, cultural values do tend to be shared in social groups. But poor does not equate to slacker. A bit of elitism in you comments. As though the rich got rich without any help.
Didn’t say all poor equate to slackers. There are clearly many hard working poor. But there are a LOT of slackers out there, and they tend to be poor, and I don’t think we should automatically assume their financial situation isn’t well deserved.
I don’t think we should assume that their financial situation is deserved. If anyone works a full time job, they should have enough for health insurance, food, a house, a new car every decade, and enough to help send their kids to college.
Again, I didn’t say the situation of all poor is deserved. I said the financial situation of slackers is deserved.
And we all know plenty of slackers that we support with our taxes…
We are talking about working people. If you work a full time job you are by definition not a slacker.
Agreed, but read the thread. The original poster made a comment about income inequity. My point is that for some (but not all!), such inequity is deserved.
I’m old enough to know that income inequality has soared over the last three decades. It’s now at a non sustainable level and will cause social unrest eventually unless it’s dealt with. There is no justification for CEO’s and Wall Street types making as much as they do compared to the average American.
Maybe you can help me out here. How does it help if CEO’s or doctors or anyone make less?
It’s the disparity between the two that’s the problem. It’s creating a two tiered society of the haves and used to have/have nots. Let’s bring up the wages at the lower end of the spectrum so people can make a dignifed living. The average wage in this country has stagnated for three decades while the elites income has soared. It’s not sustainable and there are examples throughout history to prove it…and remember the rich don’t need a bunch of syncophantic apologists for their rampant greed…so if you think it will be appreciated you’re sorely mistaken
I agree that there exists a disparity but I have a couple questions. Can you give me an example of an industrialized country with a decent educational system that did not survive wage disparity?
How do you propose to bring up wages?
You have much to learn, but I have read your thread and I won’t hold my breadth.
Larry Mishel has a systematic breakdown of the reasons for worker income stagnation since 1973. He starts with the familiar divergence: productivity up 80 percent, the compensation (including benefits) of the median worker up only 11 percent. Where did the productivity go? The answer is, it’s two-thirds the inequality, stupid. One third of the difference is due to a technical issue involving price indexes. The rest, however, reflects a shift of income from labor to capital and, within that, a shift of labor income to the top and away from the middle. What this says is that widening inequality makes a huge difference. Income stagnation does not reflect overall economic stagnation; the incomes of typical workers would be 30 or 40 percent higher than they are if inequality hadn’t soared.
Hey, I’m not disagreeing with the argument that 1) income disparity has widened and 2) labor in the traditional sense (factory worker, etc) is losing ground.
All I said in my post is that 10% of folks in this world are hopeless slackers, and I don’t have a problem with the rich making a lot more than those who don’t try.
It was a very disparaging statement. You say that 10% of folks in this world are hopeless slackers. I completely disagree with you assessment. I guess you must have come across enough people to serve your prejudice about the rich and the poor, but I do not buy what you are saying. It is simplistic and not factual.
Just wondering, do you have any thoughts about ‘how’ many who are rich have become rich ?
Isn’t it amazing the things that are posted? The top 400? Out of 142 million returns filed in 2008 the top 400’s share of the total income was 1.31%. You can find the information at http://www.irs.gov/taxstats.
David Cox: good letter.
Spot on Dennis. Bought and paid for.
Great letter, David Cox!
David- you may want to try Massachusetts
Try Mass for what? As an American, why should he go to another state to have equality?
I agree, there no need for David to “try Mass”. He concluded his letter by saying ‘My partner and I want a life together. We want marriage.”
I have good news for David. He and his partner are free to have a life together. Marriage will not achieve that end. But if he insist on getting married, Mass is the way to go. Maine should not endorse any partner relationship (union) other than natural ones. I know you don’t agree with me Joe, but the ultimate purpose of state endorsement of marriage is to provide the best possible environment for the procreation and raising of children. Permitting “gay marriage” would only do away with that purpose. Besides it would undoubtedly pave the way for endorsement of multiple-partner relationships.
I am raising three beautiful daughters with my partner. Their fathers family has all heterosexual unions and it is filled with crime, drug and alcohol abuse, domestic violence, and early death. Our daughters are excellent students, athletes, vounteer in their community, and devote their time to higher education and being good people. Please cite your sources because it is proven that same sex parents, those who choose to parent, are excellent parents who provide excellent homes and have been for a hundred years.
No, nothing has been proven except that there are some good same-sex parents. This doesn’t mean families other than traditional families should be encouraged to proliferate. Public policy cannot be based on individual cases. It’s obvious you and your partner have been able to adopt children you claim as your own. Ideally however the family should follow the pattern designed by nature, a mom and a dad with their offspring. Without going into detail let me just end by saying this: nature affords advantages that man cannot create.
I gave birth to all three beautiful children and was married to their father for all three conceptions. They have a dad but are being raised by us. In nature it is very common for offspring to be raised without a male and female parent and it is not uncommon for them to be raised by smae gendered parents. Dont you ever say anything about my children or about those children who have been adopted. Those people who adopt call them their own because without that the children would not have a family. I wish you peace.
It’s funny that you should draw examples from nature without giving examples. Yes, you’ll find some harems, but not examples of SS union species raising offspring.
I’m sorry you feel offended by my phraseology. It was intended to emphasize that adopted children are usually the offspring of someone else. In your case, as you stated, they were not adopted because they’re your offspring.
Yes it has been documented in studies that same sex couples raise children as happy, and as well adjusted as heterosexual couples.
I do not expect you to believe this, nonetheless it is true.
I don’t disagree with the fact SS couples in some cases raise happy and well- adjusted children (on that point you and I seem to agree). What I am saying is that heterosexual couples are more likely to succeed in raising happy and well- adjusted children. They are by nature endowed with advantages other types of unions do not enjoy.
Not just ‘in some cases’, they are equal to heterosexual couples in successfully raising happy, well adjusted children. You are manipulating my words, to no one’s advantage but your own.
You keep saying that it is ‘better’ for children to have heterosexual parents, but the facts are otherwise.
Your prejudice in favor of heterosexual marriage is not a reason to deny anyone their civil rights.
What ‘nature endows’ heterosexuals may be enjoyable to you, but again that is not a reason to deny others.
This is not about what is best for children, this is about your own comfort zone. It is quite presumptuous for you to say that Public Policy should be based on your prejudice.
There is no legitimate study to support the notion SS couples are equally capable of raising children. Besides, if that notion was true, why has not nature provided a way for SS couples to procreate?
One more thing: what does my comfort zone have anything to do with the value of SSM? This is only a diversionary attempt to persuade others to support SSM. It has nothing to do with whether SSM is good public policy.
Finally, my stand in support of the current definition of “marriage” is not an attempt to deny anyone of their civil rights. On the contrary, good public policy like the current definition of “marriage” ultimately benefits everyone. Besides, the current definition of “marriage” does not discriminate against anyone. It merely favors a certain type of union between a man and a woman, freely entered into, to the exclusion of all others.
Your comfort zone has absolutely nothing to do with other’s rights. That is the point.
There are studies that support what I have said about children. Here is one.
Children raised by same-sex couples appear to do as well as those raised by parents of both sexes, says an international research review that challenges the long-ingrained belief that children need male and female parents for healthy adjustment.
“It’s more about the quality of the parenting than the gender of the parents,” says Judith Stacey of New York University, co-author of the comprehensive review. It will be published Friday in the Journal of Marriage and Family.
Sociologists Stacey and Timothy Biblarz of the University of Southern California, spent five years reviewing 81 studies of one- and two-parent families, including gay, lesbian and heterosexual couples. “No research supports the widely held conviction that the gender of parents matters for child well-being,” they conclude.
“Children being raised by same-gender parents, on most all of the measures that we care about, self-esteem, school performance, social adjustment and so on, seem to be doing just fine and, in most cases, are statistically indistinguishable from kids raised by married moms and dads on these measures,” Biblarz says.
She notes that many of the studies cited place differences in family type “in context with other factors that influence child outcomes,” including number and gender of parents in the household, sexual identity, marital status and biogenetic relationship to children. r
He says that as adults, “we are struggling to be politically correct about gender” when we should be thinking more about the children. “It’s not about the supremacy of one gender over another or about the necessity of one gender over another,” he says.
In addition to child outcomes, the sociologists reviewed parenting styles and found “two women who choose to parent together are slightly more likely than a heterosexual couple to be actively committed to hands-on parenting. We don’t have data yet on two men parenting, but I think it will come out fairly similar,” Stacey says.
Fatherhood expert Michael Lamb, a psychology professor at the University of Cambridge in Cambridge, England, says he has changed his views about gender roles based on more recent research.
“Nothing about a person’s sex determines the capacity to be a good parent,” he says in an e-mail. “It is well-established that children do not need parents of each gender to adjust healthily.”
This is really getting tedious. I suggest that you take your nose out of other’s lives and live your own.Same sex marriage will come before the Supreme Court and then we will see about everyones right to pursue a happy life that includes marriage to whomever they love.
“Children raised by same-sex couples appear to do as well as those raised
by parents of both sexes, suggests an international research review”
This statement does not refute the notion that SS couples are not equally capable of raising children. Until I see a reliable study refuting that notion I will not reconsider the value of SSM for the following reasons:
Advocates for SSM propose vitro fertilization as a means of reproduction for SS couples. Although a legal procedure, this procedure invariably leads to the certain death of numerous human beings in their most nascent stage. It also separates one of the biological parents from the child conceived. Finally, if SSM is permitted, then bigamy will also have to be permitted. I’m sure there will be a similar study purporting children raised by multiple unions appear to do as well and those raised by parents of both sexes.
This conversation may be getting tedious to you but you seem to forget that it’s the proponents of SSM that raised this issue of marriage. This issue is coming up for a vote in November. It’s certainly my business to speak out for what I believe; and that belief is that changing public policy concerning marriage is not in the public’s best interest, even though the change may please SSM advocates and gay couples. Right now everyone, including gays, is free to form and dissolve the relationships they want. State endorsement is not necessary for that to happen.
Of course we can form relationships and dissolve them whenever we want. That is not the issue.
Not all same sex marriages will have children that are a result of in vitro fertilization. At the same time many of these same-sex relationships that are in existence right now are between people who have had that procedure. It’s happening already among gay and straight couples. I don’t understand your concern about this.
Many gay couples adopt children who already exist. In these cases and in the case of in vitro fertilization, the parents WANT the child-children are hardly ever accidental and unwanted.
People aren’t saying that children fare well in same sex marriages so then let us marry. We are saying that we want to be married and when told that our relationships aren’t good enough (or even bad) for children, we prove that wrong. You have the chicken and the egg backwards. For that reason, your example of polygamy as the next step is not a good one.
If you are concerned about legalized polygamy, let’s all address that issue when it is an issue. It’s not fair that we can’t have marriage because some people think that others will want multiple wives and husbands. That is not THIS issue and that is not the question on the ballot this Fall.
By the way, why did you get married?
Again, Joe, marriage is not about pleasing anyone. Neither is it a right: The state is free to endorse as many – or no – types of relationships it deems desirable. And neither is its practice of endorsing just heterosexual relationships discriminatory against gays; since it is relationships, not persons, that are being discriminated against. Also, you are not being told that your relationships are not good enough to raise children. Rather, you are being told that heterosexual relationships are more suitable than SS relationships for procreating and raising children on account of their advantages afforded by nature. So why not encourage those relationships that give children a better outcome?
Finally, gay adoption was successfully pursued by the gay community in the court system to be used as a stepping stone for acceptance of SSM. (It was never voted on for approval by the people or their representatives.) It’s no accident that this community also supports in vitro fertilization, artificial insemination, and abortion on demand that presumes that children are for the convenience and pleasure of adults. Without these means of reproduction, legal abortion on demand, and the imposition of gay adoption, the community supporting SSM knew it would be impossible to persuade voters to accept SSM.
It is our conversation that is tedious.
You sure do have selective uptake.
Speak up all you want. I will not be listening since I have heard more than enough of your bigotry.
And before what Jersey said gets twisted around, the point is not that gay parents are better (as some have twisted such statements to mean) but that they are just as good at parenting as straight parents.
Love and support.
More hateful comments from ‘the religious’.
Hate to say this, but there is plenty of non-religious homophobia going on, too. Some people just don’t agree with it, because it disgusts them? The truth hurts, but there are people who think like that.
Of course you are right.
But what does that have to do with whether SSM should be permitted?
Have I used religion to defend the meaning of marriage? Also, why would you think my comment is “hateful”. Marriage is not so much about adults and their relationships as it is about children. But it looks like proponents of “gay marriage” are trying to make it that way. I think my concern for future generations of children are far more warranted than the concern for relationships among adults that are freely entered into and dissolved at will.
I have read many of your comments and while it is true that you do not mention it in this particular comment, you have employed your religious beliefs in past posts on the SSM issue.
Homophobia used to deny others their rights is hateful.
Your right, I have argued against SSM from a religious perspective, but only to refute arguments supporting SSM from a religious viewpoint. This doesn’t mean however that I won’t used religion to make my point in the future.
Concerning your last point, is arguing against SSM necessarily homophobic? I see an attempt here by you to classify those who disagree with you on this issue as homophobic and hateful. Am I right?
I do feel that classifying anyone as less deserving of their rights such as the right to marry is hateful.
Since there is no evidence that these marriages are harmful to society I say that those against these marriages are doing so from their own discomfort and prejudice, that is homophobic.
No matter how you try to rationalize your position, I do think that your position on gay marriage is a hateful one. I am sure that there are other issues where we would disagree where I would not find your position hateful.
State endorsement of unions is not a right. It is a privilege granted by the state for the betterment of society. In fact the state is not even obligated to endorse any human relationship or bond whatsoever. But it does endorse nonetheless with the intent to encourage and facilitate couples committed to each other in a bond of love in the rearing of their offspring. So what is “hateful” about that position? No right here is being denied as you implied.
I must say it is regrettable that SS couples have been falsely led to believe that state endorsement of their unions is a right when in fact it is not. It has led to a widespread belief among them that they are further being rejected.
The problem with your premise is that raising children is NOT the purpose of marriage. And many marriages are comprised of people who have NO interest in children.
Why isn’t there a requirement to have children? Why are there rights and benefits for married couples that have nothing to do with children?
You misstated my premise, I stated the purpose was to provide the best possible environment for the procreation and raising of children. Be realistic, the state has never made having children a criteria for marriage and never will. Nonetheless it realizes the possibility of procreation is real and likely between opposites sexes regardless of their intent at the time of marriage.
And opposite sex couples will still get married and have children. But now, gay people won’t be forced into marriages that, while producing wonderful children who are loved, are not the ideal for either party.
And, of course, children are born to parents who aren’t married all the time…
If you ask me, our society is definitely in a broken state. SSM however will not ameliorate that situation. Also, you raise the issue of out-of-wedlock children and falsely assert gays are being forced into marital relationships in order to have children. These issues either don’t exist or are not pertinent.
Dennis Lopez,
So what’s the answer, then? What pale horse rider will come in and save us from ourselves? Are you saying the system is to blame?
Maybe if people were more honest in their business transactions and such, we wouldn’t have this problem. Why do you think it is that these rich and powerful people still hold all the cards? Even by statistics, something should have changed by now, but that isn’t the case.
Ah, the love of money! You can’t enforce morality, Dennis.
Carole Whelan,
Take comfort in knowing that righteous judgment will one day be swiftly enforced. You need not worry, all is as it should be.
Carole Whelan – Yea, Carole. Censorship was always one of our strong points as a country.