DHHS help
I was sad to read the account of Katie Spencer in the weekend paper (July 7-8). We cannot help such deserving people yet we can give fuel assistance, food stamps, medical help, etc. to those people who are young, able-bodied, yet too lazy to work and “claim” that they are homeless so they can continue on the dole.
It is time Maine checks those who are seeking help such as I just mentioned before giving help when they are more than able to help themselves. Please DHHS help this family.
Nancy Kealiher
Old Town
Shame, shame
I was very disappointed with the University of Maine System chancellor’s decision to find a job in his domain for Selma Botman. How is she able to hold the chancellor hostage to her demands? Apparently she caused much rancor at USM so she had to resign but with the caveat that she be given another job with the same salary and still called president.
I thought the new chancellor would be a strong administrator who would be innovative in streamlining the University of Maine System. It is obvious that like municipalities across the state, UMS must reduce costs and it also must provide good postsecondary education for our youth. Instead our chancellor has decided to continue the path of his predecessors by increasing administration costs. I had hoped for more from our new chancellor but I guess not.
There are really many ways to reduce costs within UMS without hurting our young people but you would have to have vision and strength to do it. UMS needs that strength and vision from its chancellor and trustees. A shame.
Richard Leonard
Veazie
Affordable care
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the majority of the Affordable Care Act is constitutional. I know many people struggled with this issue; I myself did for a while. Should we be required by law to have insurance?
Then I stepped back and thought about it. Should insurance companies be able to charge people with health conditions far more than they can afford and drop coverage because of pre-existing conditions? I thought about my friends and family members that are struggling with cancer. I have seen the impact of the cost of cancer treatment and wondered if my family and friends would lose coverage if this law did not get implemented.
Would we all be subject to higher health care costs? Most definitely! For those of us fortunate to have insurance, we will hardly notice a difference. The patient protections portion of the law will help you get the most from your current insurance plan, offer clear choices for consumers, strengthen Medicare for seniors and provide them with more affordable access to preventive services and prescription drugs. It also will provide ways to keep insurance companies accountable.
I know this law might not be perfect, but I am certain it is in the best interest of cancer patients and others facing chronic illness.
I’m so grateful to the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network for its hard work advocating for the patient protections in this important law and its support of provisions in the Affordable Care Act that benefit cancer patients and their families.
Diane Mitchell
Rumford
Same-sex partners
Much has been written and said lately about the upcoming referendum on gay marriage. Here’s my two cents worth: This issue should not be about civil rights, intolerance, bigotry or out-of-state contributions as the BDN and others would have you believe.
The real issue is about same-sex “marriage” being thrust inappropriately and blatantly into the same category as normal, natural, institutional marriage between a man and woman. To each his own, but let’s just find another name for it. Same-sex partners sounds good to me.
Joe Bertolaccini
Orrington
Choosing term ‘Gestapo’
It is unfortunate that Gov. Paul LePage chose to use the term “Gestapo” during his weekly radio address on July 7 to describe the work of the Internal Revenue Service.
While terminology from the Nazi era has increasingly made its way into the American popular lexicon in recent years (“Soup Nazi” from “Seinfeld,” for example), such use is simply a misappropriation of historical facts.
The Gestapo, an acronym for the Geheime Staatspolizei, was the secret state police of Nazi Germany. An instrument of Adolf Hitler’s authority, the Gestapo fell under the auspices of Reichsfuhrer-SS Heinrich Himmler throughout most of the Third Reich. The Gestapo had authority over the following areas in Nazi Germany and Nazi-occupied Europe during the Second World War: combating political crime; controlling the border police and their intelligence service; conducting counter-sabotage police work and related intelligence within the borders of the Reich and in support of the Abwehr (military intelligence); and handling cases of industrial sabotage and espionage. Hardly similar to the IRS.
The Gestapo acted ruthlessly in these pursuits and assisted the SS in the roundup of German and European Jews. For the governor, in a prepared statement, to equate the work of the IRS to a criminal organization like the Gestapo in order to enhance his criticism of the Supreme Court decision to uphold the Affordable Care Act reflects ignorance of history at best. Even had he spoken off the cuff, we would encourage extreme caution when applying Nazi terms to modern American democratic institutions and political decisions.
Robert Bernheim
Executive Director
Holocaust & Human Rights Center of Maine
Tribal options
Let’s say the Passamaquoddy tribe had a few dollars as a result of one of its previous investments. There would obviously be a number of options of what to do with that money. One obvious option would be to reinvest the money in some prospective enterprise.
Well, the tribe’s track record in this area is hardly anything to brag about. Yes, we’ve had a few shining successes. Dragon Cement, Creative Apparel and Northeast Blueberry Inc. were among the few successful endeavors. Among the tribe’s failures were Passamaquoddy Housing Inc, a sawmill at Indian Township, the High Stakes Bingo, a supermarket at Pleasant Point, a supermarket at Indian Township, an appliance center at Pleasant Point, radio stations in Rockland, a cranberry farm at Indian Township, a cranberry operation near Columbia Falls and a campground facility at Indian Township.
So the confidence of the tribal membership in the administration’s “investment” proposals is very dubious to say the least. Perhaps the tribal membership should demand some other option.
Roger Ritter
Indian Township
Joe B. I assume you welcome the two cents of others so here’s mine. This vote will absolutely be about civil rights because marriage is a civil institution not a religious one. When I got married we went to City Hall and got a license not to a church to get permission. There was no religious person presiding at our ceremony.
It is the right wing that brought this issue of language into play, whether it’s called a civil union or not couples will still be legally married. Hence the term gay marriage. It’s like catsup and ketchup, call it what you will it’s still the same thing.
However I can tell from the use of words like “normal” and “natural” that isn’t really the language that bothers you. Why is that? College buddy you just can’t reconcile feelings for? Looking forward to Greco Roman wrestling at the Olympics this summer a little too much? Food for thought man.
Hey Nancy, able-bodied, motivated, and young isn’t enough to get a job in Maine. Wake up and smell the economy.
Stop blaming the economy. I have a job my partner has a job, my daughter has a job. We just got raises too. The want ads are full. The internet job sites are full. Get a job!
There are manual labor jobs the run for weeks, sometimes months in the newspaper that I work for and apparently they get few applicants. There are jobs there for people who really want to work. Sometimes you have to take a crappy job until a better one comes along.
I have brown hair and my daughter has brown hair too. Gee, that must mean everyone has brown hair! Oh wait…
No it doesnt but it also is not relavent. God Bless you. i will pray you find employment.
I have a great job. Don’t make assumptions.
The point of that example is that what’s true for you isn’t true for everyone. Just because you’ve been fortunate, doesn’t mean everyone else has been. It doesn’t make them lazy or less hard working either.
Then stop blaming the president for the economy.
Find a job somewhere else and move there.
Gee, that’s a real solution for Maine. All three of my kids are out of the state for decent work, and I’d like to be closer to my grandson. All of us would like to be here for the sense of community and quality of life, but there’re no jobs. Unless you want to flip burgers.
My kids have moved to find decent work too. You can thank Baldacci, Angus, and 35 years of Dem rule for driving our kids out of Maine.
No, you can blame the problem on Maine being a rural state.
Rural states all over the US are losing thier young people regardless of which party is in power because the jobs are found in urban areas, also regardless of which party is in power.
“being thrust inappropriately and blatantly into the same category as normal, natural, institutional marriage between a man and woman.”
Doesn’t that kind of language reveal your hand and prove what this is truly about? You think gay people are by default less than you. Regardless of character or actions, gays are automatically inferior. So, for example, a gay couple of decades by nature of their genders is less than Kim Kardashian and her 72 day marriage.
You’re going to have to come up with a better argument than you think you’re better than gay people. You need to have a more reasonable basis for laws than that.
pretty sad to think you know what this Joe guy thinks and can state such in this blog. throwing brainless and morally corrupt celebrities into the mix doesn’t make for a good argument.
Why can’t I throw them in the mix? The only quantifiers the letter spoke about was male/female and that that alone is what is a normal marriage. My argument is great because it highlights how stupid and petty that argument is — that opposite-sex is what makes for a great marriage. That’s obviously not true because Kim Kardashion married someone of the opposite sex and it wasn’t a great marriage. Heck, 50% of marriages fit Joe Bertolaccini’s rubric of what makes a normal healthy marriage and yet they end in divorce. Guess there is more to it than gender.
Actually Schmid–throwing brainless and morally corrupt celebrities into the mix explains perfectly how the very institution which you feel so compelled to protect is in itself every bit as mixed up as what you claim legalized gay marriage will be. I have a cousin who has been with her partner for almost 40 years and they have one of the strongest commitments I have ever seen. They have far surpassed the average length of your most holy sacred hetero marriages. I think Wolfie knows exactly what Joe thinks and why his thinking is wrong.
We can only go by the words he uses, which are quite clear in intent.
Dear Joe, Homosexual relationships have been declared a natural form of human bonding by the AMA, The American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Psychological Associaiton and ALL other proffessional organizations. If we call it ANYTHING else our employers, state, and federal government can deny us our benefits. God Bless and keep you. I prayed for you today.
Nature depends on survival through procreation, therefore, homosexual relationships are not natural.
LOL, nonsense. Is there a shortage of people on this earth? Have you adopted and fostered all the children without homes yet?
God Bless you EJ. There are billions of people, many of them starving on this Earth. I hope, for your sake, some people stop making starving babies. is it possible that an intelligent being is thinking that it would be wise to make Gay people to stop the overpopulation and destruction of the Earth’s natural resources.
I will not be having any children!
But having or not having children has nothing do to anymore with the sexuality of people in relationships. Straight people don’t have that same pressure to have children so much and gay people have so many more opportunities to provide a loving home.
It’s not 1962 anymore.
Why would a loving God make someone that would live a life that goes against His teachings, therefore causing that person to spend an eternity separated from the One that created him or her? God does not make a person gay.
You screech about the Constitution when it is convenient for you, but never in a consistent manner. We’re not a theocracy — you can’t base laws on one religion. If you want to do that, maybe try going to Iraq.
Iraq? No thanks. My daughter was there twice, and it just doesn’t seem like a place I’d want to live.
Then stop trying to create a theocracy here.
There you go again. Accusing me of saying something I didn’t say.
You did say it. You’re advocating laws based upon your personal religion. A government based upon a religion is called a theocracy.
Are you are so presumptuous that you know what your god is thinking?
He left a Book that gives me a pretty good idea.
A book written, altered and manipulated by human beings.
While you won’t want or accept someone telling you how or what to believe, will you understand that others shouldn’t have to live their secular lives according to the articles of your faith?
I have never once said that others should live by my beliefs or standards. And those that have accused me of that are incapable of comprehending what is written without injecting their own words of bias and bigotry. I believe what I believe. And I also believe that everyone else has a right to their own beliefs and opinions. That’s the way it is.
So why shouldn’t SSM be legal?
Because that would be pandering with special privileges for a group that has chosen their lifestyle. The lifestyle choice flies in the face of morality and nature. And the demand for SSM is just a stepping stone to further actions that are immoral and unnatural.
Tolerance is one thing, but force acceptance is quite something different. Allowing SSM is forced acceptance. Civil unions should suffice. But, they don’t.
Religious people chose their lifestyles, why should they be pandered to and get special privileges?
And if civil unions would suffice, why are religious organizations in other states trying to outlaw civil unions as well?
I guess what you would call pandering here, I would call inclusion. I realize this is a bad word in our Party these days. Absent a religious perspective, I don’t see how SSM is either immoral or unnatural. (Is it different from what I want? You bet, but thankfully for all of you good folks, I am not the arbiter of what is permitted and what isn’t…democratic processes do that.)
I would have rather seen civil unions that carry all the weight of marriage…but that chance came and went. When people–mostly on our side–fought against civil unions tooth and nail, the demand turned full-fledged SSM. So marriage it shall be.
And that’s the only reason for “traditional marriage”. Not so, and we’ve been through this before.
I prefer the term “spawn-based” marriage….
You don’t further your argument by diminishing those in the institution you wish to join. Throughout these posts I read over and over again about tolerance, love, civil rights and the lot. Describing those of us in heterosexual marriage as being in “spawn-based’ marriage” is just as abhorrent as the terms used against homosexual marriage. You are becoming the thing you hate by doing this and you should delete this post.
If you don’t, you just joined the haters.
Do you call out those who use the term “sodomy-based” marriage?
Do you call out those who say that the only reason for marriage is to procreate? I obviously don’t believe that it is “spawn-based” marriage. I was using it to make a point that some people seem to think that marriage is only for making babies and that demeans the people who are marrying and the institution itself.
Here you go. This is to all. It is marriage. If you call it “sodomy based”, “spawn based”, etc., you are diminishing the institution for everyone. Anyone who uses those terms is engaging in a form of hate speech. If you want to make an argument for or against, then make one that makes sense and isn’t more than mere rhetoric designed to insult and enflame.
Now to you, you should not have used the term spawn-based in any manner. It is just as hateful and, if you are against hate, then you should not engage in it. If you leave that posted, you have lost the moral authority to demand civility or rational comment.
I’m sorry you feel that way about me.
The way I feel about you is that you sincerely believe in formalizing marriage for all people, with all the benefits and burdens that entails. But the discussion should not be going where it is.
Do I really think you believe your parents were in a spawn based marriage or that if you met my wife and I you would ask how that spawn thing was going? Of course not. But that comment was the only sentence in your post, how does that look? I do believe this is a discussion that needs to be had. There are thoughtful arguments to be made.
Why should society recognize same sex marriages? It is simple, same sex relationships are common and dedicated. These couples have children, property, health issues and the same relationship problems that the rest of us face. Some with children serve in our military, facing the same possibility of death as any other. These relationships go South too. The only institution with all its trapping that takes care of the kids, property, support, survivor benefits and all the other issues that arise between couples is marriage.
It is a civil institution. There is no other efficient and effective way to deal with these issues and it is both unfair and unwise to exclude children from the protections of family court. Even if you are religious and abhor these relationships, why would you do that to children? There is no rational argument against in my opinion.
I will admit, I did not start out on this side of the equation, but I brought myself around. I want this to win. I don’t want to see the side I’m on lose focus of the argument that will win with the majority of Mainers.
I’m a lawyer and I have brought more than one person to my side by having this discussion. There were some “no” votes, that left considering it and many are more likely to be yes votes.
Arguments are won by concentrating on the strengths of your position and not attacking theirs. Make them attack your strengths,which gives them no time for their own actual positive points and makes them look shrill.
Again, I’m not questioning your character and I understand the emotion of this subject. I cannot imagine my reaction if someone attempted to dismiss my relationship with my wife. I’m your ally, not your enemy.
You don’t think there is a possibilty that such a ridiculous term as “spawn based” was used to highlight how ridiculous terms like “homosexual marriage”/”sodomy based marriage” is? I think it’s pretty silly to try and turn things around and say that someone trying to make an argument for equality is engaging in hate. I also find it laughable how high and mighty you sound in your comment, yet completely gloss over more egregious examples of people being uncivil and irrational.
Adler42 I owe you an apology for my previous comment, another day on this topic. I was churlish and harsh. I should not have responded as I did. I hope that you will accept my apology. I was prompted by my sincere, deeply held belief that while I very much support SSM, as a 68 year old heterosexual I hate the idea of having anyone’s civil liberties voted on.
Your response to me was thoughtful, heartfelt and carefully written, so I was glad to read it. I think that it was beneficial for others to read as well. Silver lining.
However I do not agree with your take on Regular Joe’s comment. Now I think that it is you who is being churlish and highhanded. His comment did not merit you saying that he is ‘diminishing the institution for everyone’. It does not diminish it for me. It was not mean spirited and I believe that he meant it in a light way. He does not deserve your rebuke. He maintains his sense of humor and in my opinion shows remarkable patience and good will. Perhaps you disagree and of course that is your right.
There are many people on these threads, including myself at times, who do deserve it,
Regular Joe does not.
Thank you for the apology. Please see my response to Joe below. If you still think I’m being churlish and harsh, then Joe, I’m sorry. That is not my intent.
My comment was on nature.
My husband had cancer. He could no longer procreate. Does that mean what we had was not natural?
Oh no! Does that mean my vasectomy nullifies the my marriage?
I like your strategy of making up a definition and then showing how gay people aren’t part of that definition. Brilliant!
I didn’t make up anything. I was addressing nature and the survival of human kind. Woman was made for man. They fit together well, and they ensure the survival of human kind. That’s the natural order of things. Men and men, and women and women do not fit together, and they do not ensure the survival of human kind. The fact that homosexuality is not natural is obvious. That said, it is their right to live as they please, natural or not.
Civil unions with the benefits of marriage should be sufficient.
Who in the world gave you the credentials to pontificate about what is natural. I have been around animals, wild and domestic, my whole adult life and have witnessed many instances of male on male female on female behavior.
Then you should know what I’m saying, since you’ve witnessed, first hand, the unnatural behavior in the animal world.
Sorry EJ, I didn’t realize you were just kidding.
Homosexuality is prevalent in the animal kingdom. Just because something is uncommon, it doesn’t make it wrong or unnatural. If it did, that would mean people with blond hair are bad.
Prevalent? Not quite. I’m sure there’s a better term than that.
Why don’t you make one up then? That’s seems to be what you’re good at.
Then why are couples in their 60s allowed to marry? Why would sterile hetero couples be allowed to marry?
Joe Bertolaccini–After same sex marriage has become legal in Maine, your church will still be able to discriminate to your hearts content concerning who you want to bestow your blessings upon.
The real issue is about whether we, the people of the state of Maine, want to let people like you and your church dictate to the rest of us that we must discriminate against our brethren in the legal contract of marriage.
I sure hope the good guys win this time.
kc who are you to judge who the good guys are?
It’s like this Schmid–The bad guys deal in fear, intimidation, hate and lies.
The good guys deal in truth, charity, inclusion and love.
It’s a no-brainer.
The bad guys claim the imperative of the saviour.
The good guys act as he taught.
Really, anyone can see it.
Yes.
Partially correct:
The bad guys deal in fear, intimidation, hate and lies.
The good guys deal with the Truth, the Life and the Way, accept Him as Savior, and do their best to live by His example.
And that takes a brain.
It also takes a heart.
Absolutely. And a compassion for the eternal souls of those that are lost.
By that rubric, you’re one of the bad guys. You constantly engage in hateful language and are constantly spreading misinformation.
It’s only wrong because you don’t believe it.
By the way, I forgot to thank you for sticking up for President Bush and his veto pen. I should have said that he rarely used it rather than he never used it. But, you corrected me and showed me that President Bush did attempt to curb the out-of-control spending that the Dems in charge of Congress were guilty of during his last two years in office. Just imagine how high the deficit would have been if he hadn’t vetoed what he did veto. Kudos to President Bush.
You should have not lied or at least sought to check your claims. But you didn’t. That’s that. That proves you’re not one of the honest people on here. You don’t care whether your facts are true or not. You regularly use inflammatory language on here, such as if people vote for Obama they’re voting for the destruction of the country. So yes, according to your rubric, you’re one of the bad guys. Don’t create a higher standard for other people if you’re unwilling to hold yourself to that same standard. That’s called hypocrisy.
Hey, I said thank you for correcting my mistake. Aren’t you man or woman enough to accept that thanks? Is there not one iota of kindness in you?
By the way, I make comments on what I believe. My comments are straight forward and truthful. A vote for Obama is a vote for the destruction of this nation. He’s already done nearly 6 trillion dollars of damage to America, and according the the CBO, if his plans are implemented, the national debt will skyrocket in the next ten years. WE CANNOT SUSTAIN THIS KIND OF OUTRAGEOUS SPENDING. Or do you honestly believe we can spend our way out or keep the printing presses running 24/7? Only a completely left wing ideologue would believe such bunk.
It has nothing to do with kindness or being a man or woman. It has everything to do with being honest and good. You aren’t good if you go around spreading misinformation. That’s fine if you believe something, but if you are making a factual claim, it should be truthful and you don’t do that. You say what you believe regardless of reality and that is wrong. You can change the subject all you want, but it doesn’t erase that. You are constantly on here making claims that you can’t back up. Just stop it.
Quite frankly again, there are good and bad guys on both sides of the issue. The issue is not a matter of good and bad guys. It’s about making the right decisions for all Mainers that could have a profound impact on the state of the family in the long run.
And you are … ?
Quite frankly, no one is “dictating” anything on anyone. Civil marriage is a state endorsement of a relationship between two people, namely a man and a woman. Some people want to extend the definition to include two people of the same sex. Ultimately Mainers will decide what types of relationships they want the state to endorse. Let’s hear the argument on both sides without getting ugly.
Joe, You are free to call your opposite sex relationship, “Opposite Sex Partners” if you wish, but I will call my same sex relationship a “Marriage” when that civil right becomes mine!
don’t hold your breath
Same to you.
What’s good for the goose, they say….
Mr. Bernheim, let me guess, you’re an angry liberal Democrat who did not vote for LePage. Who would have figured?
He may or may not fit your stereotype but he has an excellent take on history. Read again and learn from him. I’m not liberal (by my definition) and not associated with any defamation league but I too have been offended by this blatant travesty of a comparison and the ignorance of history.
I did not vote for LePage and have seen no subsequent reason to vote for him (or his apologists).
Don’t you get it? Even if LePage didn’t want to offend and made what he thought an innocent analogy he was historically off the wall with his lack of knowledge and education as it pertains to the Gestapo and what their role was in the Nazi regime. He was ignorant and ignorant people , especially those in power, whose public utterances get front page headlines in newspapers, are dangerous. Thankfully he was published, caught, and had to backtrack but I am sure he still has not learned in his heart that his comment was stupid and offensive and we can expect more ignorant remarks in the future.
Diane Mitchell–You are right in seeing the real pluses of the ACA. You are right that it is not perfect nothing ever is, but this is far better than the previous non healthcare. The Republicans should be looking at ways to improve the act rather than trying to repeal it. Notice that the R’s have not mentioned what they would replace the act with, my guess is nothing as they are owned by the insurance companies.
The Dems in Maine destroyed our health insurance system to the point were we only have ONE real option.
Let me guess…….this is true because you heard it on the radio?
No he just makes up his own facts.
You both need to buy a clue. Why do you think Anthem is the only option in Maine? If you said the Maine Dems made it so then you win used scratch tickets for life.
I assume the option is the Republican one, that of die quickly we can’t afford you lingering around.
If you paid attention instead of throwing out the liberal talking points you’d understand that at one time we had a competitive health insurance market, including non profit Blue Cross Blue Shield, in Maine. Then the Maine Dems decided the “fix” things and drove every company except Anthem out of the state. As a result we have some of the highest rates in the country. Of course the legisvermin get taxpayer provided health insurance for a part time job and then get a hack job in government (see Paul Violette and Dale McCormick for examples) with taxpayer provided health insurance, so they couldn’t care less what the rest of us pay.
So the fact that Blue Cross Blue Shield decided to sell out to Anthem is the Democrats fault. I can hear the Conservatives screaming now if the Dems. had not allowed this to happen. Gee I learned something today.(not)
Nancy Kealiher, Diane Mitchell, Robert Bernheim: good letters.
Joe Bertolaccini: your alternative to SSM would not have sufficient legal and family benefits. SSM will not damage traditional marriage. Plenty of abuse damaging that institution from within.
Oh Joe, get out of the dark ages. Of course this is a civil rights issue. If two constenting adults want to commit to each other legally and call it marriage, that is their private business and no one else’s. Leave these folks alone. This is where so called conservatives really show their hypocrisy. They say they are for smaller, less intrusive government. But then they are all for BIG INTRUSIVE GOVERNMENT telling us who we can marry, what we can smoke, what we can watch, what we can read, what our medical and reproductive decisions should be, and the list goes on and on. Joe, you and all right wingers need to stop being BIG GOVERNMENT INTRUDERS, stop being walking hypocrites, and leave people alone. If those folks want to marry and call it marriage, why should you care? What does it have to do with you? Don’t you have anything to do other than meddle in other people’s lives? And that goes for all you hypocritical right wingers out there. For goodness sake, get a life of your own and stay out of other people’s lives.
Small government, as long as it benefits rich straight white people…..
Thanks Robert. LePage is a buffoon and an arrogant, ignorant, bully, a disgrace to the Blaine House, and an embarrassment to this state. He is also a corporate toadie liar. The Affordable Care Act will save the nation hundreds of billions of dollars, reduce healthcare costs, end the cruel practices of the insurance companies, and get most everyone covered just like its state level twin: ROMNEY CARE in Massachusetts. LePage and Romney and all the TeaPublicans are absolute liars, flip floppers, and hypocrites on this. The Affordable Care Act mandate was originally a REPUBLICAN IDEA, and it is one that Mittens RoMONEY defended time and again as governor of Massachusetts. He said ROMNEYCARE was a “national model” and a “Republican way” of getting everyone in the NATION covered. So now we have it, the ROMNEYCARE twin, and they flip flop like the flip flopping liars and corporate toadie hypocrites that they are. It is just disgusting.
It would seem that the power of the IRS might be increased– along with the 16,000 agents being hired to contend with the taxes as part of the Obamanoncare act–as Nancy Pelosi said, “we have to pass this in order to know what is in it,” but we still do not know the entire complexites of it. Don’t think Governor LePage is far off course in his assessment.
Don’t forget the billions in ACA allocated to the IRS for a new computer system to collect data on every small business, every employer and employee, and all sole proprietors. It’s going to be the largest database of personal information in history, and the IRS is going to be in charge of collecting the data to input. That’s one of the reasons for the 16,000 new IRS agents.
The government is getting far too big. It’s time to cut it down to what the Constitution says it should. 11/6/12 – The day America begins to breath again…. or the day it dies.
16,000 new IRS agents means JOB CREATION!!!! YEAH!!!
And don’t forget that Bush never used his veto pen during his last two years in office. Oh wait… Your facts and “truths” are rarely ever based in reality. Don’t you get tired of that? America won’t die when Obama is re-elected. Calm down and come back to earth — you’ll probably be much happier.
I’d forgotten EJ said that, and I remembered it much differently. So I looked it up, seems you have caught Mr Parsons in another lie. http://www.senate.gov/reference/Legislation/Vetoes/BushGW.htm
Joe, will you “same sex partner” me?
Sounds dreamy, huh? Really has that impact that we all know and wish for when we are asked to spend the rest of our lives with the person we love.
I wonder if Mr. Bertolaccini would find that “good” for him and his relationship to his wife. It’s not “good” for me and it’s really not his business. What I want with the man I love fits every definition of the word marriage.
“You would like a marriage license? I will need to see a photo ID, proof of residency and normalcy please.”
Diane Mitchell … I said to myself, self why should insurance companies make money , or Hannaford or Irving or anyone at all… why don’t we all just live off the government. Brilliant idea self! It such a selfish idea to take other peoples earned money you know!
But that was the case. The responsible people were assuming the costs of the irresponsible people who used emergency care as primary care.
Responsible, people have insurance, if the can afford it. How many people do you know that don’t have insurance, but can afford it. It’s these people that are causing a need for mandates, you pay every time you go to the doctor, because of this. to me the selfish are the ones who can afford but don’t have. I for one would have insurance if I could afford it, and I always did have it when I could.
If a person is in good health and has a healthy bank account and the ability to pay as he or she needs for medical services, why should he or she be penalized for not having health insurance? And how are these people causing any problems with the health system or causing the need for a mandate?
And what about a person that wants to purchase a catastrophic policy to cover emergency or catastrophic needs if they arose? Should they have to purchase a regular policy? Did you know that in Obamacare, catastrophic policies are out the window?
Obamacare is a mess that has to be repealed. There are measures that can be taken to fix the broken system. ACA is not that measure.
Pssst, the exception is not the rule.
EJ people who have money enough to pay there bills out right, are not the problem, but then you know that. Obamacare is a mess because, the Republicans want it to be. that being said, they have no idea of their own.
Robert Bernheim is of course right. The IRS is not the Gestapo. At the same time the Governor’s use of the word “Gestapo” is in keeping with the meaning the word has assumed (both on the political left and the political right) for a dangerous and extreme abuse of the state’s policing power. It was in that sense for example that some of us spoke of “Gestapo-like tactics” on the part of the Chicago police during the 1968 Democratic convention. We were exaggerating then as well, but no one suggested any disrespect for victims of the Holocaust so far as I remember. The Governor clearly intended no disrespect as well. He was not talking about the Holocaust. He was talking about a fear that the policing power of the IRS was over-reaching in a way that was dangerous to American liberties. Many of us believe that the role of the IRS as envisaged in the new healthcare act poses no such risk, but the Governor is articulating a wide-spread fear that it does. To distort what he meant–even as we accuse him of distortions–is also irresponsible. The meaning of words depends on specific use, and it is the Governor’s critics, not the Governor, who have invoked the catastrophe of the Holocaust for political gain in this instance.
There is a huge difference in thee actions of the chicago police in the 60’s beating up us citizens excercising their right to protest and the IRS and the reference was more appropriate in that case. LePage and his use of hyperbole to make political points is ignorant of the historical facts and his analogy was dumb and unfitting for a man in the position of gov. of the state of Maine
No, searoses, Obamacare is a mess because it is a mess, not because of the Republicans. It wasn’t even completed when it was voted into law. It still isn’t completed in that it has open ends all over the bill that depend on economic factors, implementation factors, and the willingness of the states and private sector to cooperate.
The IRS money for a new computer system and thousands of new agents is in the bill. That is a fact that the supporters flatly deny because of the embarrassment of such a provision. It is a complete invasion of our privacy in many ways. It is Big Brother on steroids.
Another provision in the bill is for a microchip with all of our medical and personal information on it that can be scanned at the hospitals and clinics to provide instant access to all our personal and medical information. The provision for this implanted microchip allows the medical secretary to allow any information felt necessary to be placed on the chip. The chip is also contains a transmitter that can track you no matter where you are. I guess that could have something to do with the recent launches of top-secret satellites that have been going up lately. Just saying.
Do you want Big Brother knowing where you are and what you’re doing all the time? Do you want Big Brother knowing how much you have in the bank or how much you owe in taxes? Do you want Big Brother invading your privacy 24/7? Well, with Obamacare and a couple of other bills that Obama has signed, that’s what you’re going to get. And if you refuse the chip, then you won’t get any services at all. Sound familiar?