Cost of watching an inmate
Penobscot County residents should be concerned after reading the BDN July 31 article about how much per day it’s costing the jail to watch over a suicidal inmate at Eastern Maine Medical Center.
Sheriff Glenn Ross states it costs $1,500 per day for the six correction officers it takes to supervise the inmate over a 24-hour period.
Also, is it necessary to have two officers with the inmate at all times? He must be restrained in some way to a bed. With pepper spray or a Taser, one officer could stop an act of aggression. My understanding is there’s also a Bangor police officer at the hospital at all times. Surely that officer would be available to assist most of the time.
Maybe it would be cost effective to change a holding cell at the jail into a special holding area for such inmates to eliminate the liability issue. That way, corrections officers already on duty can supervise the inmate. I believe more clarification and research should be done on this issue for the benefit of Penobscot County taxpayers.
Leon Nason
Skowhegan
Cannot accept DA’s statement
In eighth grade, a classmate told me that she would have been pregnant by her stepfather before kindergarten if it was possible. She said her mother refused to believe her, and the abuse continued until he moved away. I felt horror and discomfort. She said she was getting counseling, but the statute of limitations had expired. In high school, she would start crying randomly.
As a mandatory reporter for most of my adult life, it is very clear to me that mandatory means “must do so,” not “optional.” We cannot accept District Attorney Chris Almy’s reported statement in the BDN, ( C “C harges Unlikely for Not Turning In Carlson,” Aug 4-5) that “the intent of the law was to encourage people to report suspected abuse, not to punish them for not reporting it.” Anyone capable of competently handling the duties of the professions of those who failed to report Bob Carlson inherently had the capacity to figure out how to report what they knew.
If Almy allows them to go untried, a clear message is sent to those who are in positions of power who abuse children: Most people will be so uncomfortable with what you are doing, they will let you get away with it. The statute of limitations already allows men like the one who preyed on my friend to move out of state and strike again with no record of prior offense. It is time for a public outcry to force adults to act correctly in defense of children.
Heather Estey
Bangor
Bangor’s roaming cats
Several years ago, the Bangor City Council made the wise and safe decision to have an ordinance that prohibited dogs from roaming freely in the city, a safety measure for both residents and the dogs. Reading the article in the BDN about several cats missing, perhaps because coyotes or foxes are eating them, leads me to wonder why the original ordinance did not include free-roaming cats. Not to sound unsympathetic, but there is no one to blame but the owner if a pet goes missing when they are not contained.
Cats can be as serious a health threat as dogs. Last count, there were at least 3,000 feral cats in Bangor alone and hundreds of domestic cats roaming freely as well. Cats easily spread feline leukemia and go poo in our gardens and yards. They have no borders; they have no one following them with a pooper scooper. That very same poo often contains toxoplasmosis, a parasitic disease that can seriously harm an unborn baby if the mother comes in contact with contaminated soil.
They can also infect humans with cat-scratch fever and salmonella. They needlessly kill millions of songbirds each year. We allow no other domesticated pet to roam freely, no ferrets, no snakes, lizards, rats, gerbils, dogs or other loved pet. So why are we allowing cats to roam our streets? Cats can be restricted and still get fresh air. Contact your vet for advice and contact your city councilors if you feel strongly about this issue.
Pat Martin
Bangor
Taxing cuts for the rich
My family is one of the lucky few whose taxes will go up slightly if the upper-income Bush-era tax cuts are allowed to expire at the end of the year.
I recognize good fortune as well as hard work contributed to our success. As patriotic Americans we recognize that what our country needs now is not to extend tax breaks to folks like us who do not need them but rather to use the increased revenues that would come by returning to Clinton-era rates to help close federal deficits and restore important public services.
By the same token, lower rates should continue for the 98 percent of American households whose income falls below the top tax bracket. The 98 percent are the real “job creators” by starting businesses and families, buying products and services and supporting their communities. The middle class are the true engine of the U.S. economy.
Sens. Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins will play a crucial role in determining whether we support the middle class by asking families like mine to contribute a little more or continue wasteful giveaways to those of us who already have so much.
In November why would the voters want to elect Republican Mitt Romney, who wants to institutionalize the kind of tax avoidance strategies he and only the very rich can use? Shouldn’t the rich pay their proportionate share?
Bonnie Porta
Cape Elizabeth
Guns make us safer
The question asked in the Aug. 4-5 BDN editorial was, “Do more guns make you safer?” The answer is yes. Trying to place blame on a inanimate object is foolish. Pencils do not make you misspell; forks do not make you overweight.
I have not heard of any gun shops being robbed during business hours, nor has there been a mass shooting at a gun show. Why is that? Every major city with their strict gun laws have murders; take Chicago — 25 over the weekend.
Keith Colby
Belfast
Keith Colby I think every person that believes Americans should not own firearms for protection should post a sign at the end of their driveway stating such. Those of us that believe otherwise will never be bothered by criminals again. It’s a great plan as the criminals will know exactly who to target. I think this just might work!
I do not think it is sensible to believe that Americans should not own firearms as it is a Constitutional right citizens have. But it is sensible to restrict kinds and numbers of firearms one person may own. What is enough to protect yourself? You can only shoot at the most two at one time. Oh, maybe you need a third of fourth being loaded while you are discharging bullets from the two you are firing? Okay, is four enough to protect yourself?
My honest hope is that you will never need a fifth bullet, but I certainly want the option of having as many as my money can afford. I don’t want to be at my wife’s funeral saying I wish I could have had another bullet.
You would have to be married first. ;)
Oh, did you miss my acquiescence that you may need four, two to shoot and two someone is loading for you?
Why does it matter how many guns a person owns? Does owning five guns instead of four transform me into a violent criminal?
My comment was related to the post about needing a gun for protection. How many do you need?
That’s similar to asking “How many pairs of shoes does a woman need?” Basically, it’s nobody’s business since the owner is the sole determinate as to the number necessary.
It’s not a good idea to travel in dangerous game territory or hunt dangerous game with a weapon which is inadequate for the job. (don’t shoot a bear with a .22, you will simply make him mad.) Similarly I would not use a shotgun in my house to eliminate a mouse. (too much collateral damage. Therefore it can also be said the one doesn’t wear sandals in a road race or high heels while playing basketball.
What is necessary depends on the individuals needs not society’s misconceptions.
Except when society is harmed by individual needs. How many pairs of shoes did Imelda own?
My individual needs and wants are my business.
I wish more people would have that view in a principled manner. At lot of times however, it seems people have that view in regards to themselves, but not others.
Yes, until the intrude upon my needs and wants.
Yes and no. You have every right as to what is in your home or on your property, you have no right, however, to dictate what is in my home or on my property.
I do agree with you there because as an individual I cannot dictate anything. Only as a member of a majority can that happen. I think I am in a minority on this issue so you can continue to amass your arsenal of weapons.
So if a voting majority decided on what kind of car everyone should drive, you would be ok with that? No one has the right or moral authority to infringe upon my individual rights or to run my life. You talk about me “amassing my arsenal of weapons” as if I’m planning some kind of war. Even if my house is full to burst with guns, I’m not a bad guy, I don’t commit violent crimes or act like a jack@$$ with them, isn’t that enough?
Yes, that is enough. And, I thank you for it.
My point is that, if I own ten or twenty guns, I am no greater threat to society than if I own one or two.
I could always break out my rifle I had as a kid with the cork attached by a string to the muzzle and just use it over and over till they finally give up and leave. Would that make you happy?
I have no problem with gun ownership. It is arsenal ownership I take issue with. Have your pistol or rifle handy should you need it. I don’t have one so if I am confronted by a trespasser I am doomed. The issue is how many do you need to protect yourself?
I have 40 firearms at this point, and will get more. Most are historical firearms including service rifles from WW1 and WW2. I collect them and take them to the range once in a while to shoot. Why should I limit my hobby to appease you?
And, for now you can do so. You do not have to appease me. You can even do so in the event that a limit is placed on the numbers that can be purchased though you would be doing so illegally. But that will probably not happen. So I will just have to accept that we live in a violence loving culture sad though it be.
Yes and how many cars you can own and how fast they can go, how many cars does anyone need. Then maybe how much land you can own, how much do you really need. How much food you can have how much do you really need. LOL
Land and food are not weapons so that obviates that argument. Cars can and have been used as weapons and they do kill and maim. Or at least the person driving them causes them to do that. But most often the purpose of a car is to get you somewhere. The purpose of a gun is to kill or maim someone. Yes, I think limits should be put on that.
…and what is the purpose of a knife? I think you’re starting to catch on.
The best thing we could limit would be the uneducated responses on this site. Ooops, you already used all of yours up, guess we wont be hearing from you anymore
Well if others would stop responding with their ‘educated’ assertions then I would have nothing to add. But this is just so much fun. Can’t help myself. Very entertaining.
Since our founders wanted us to be well armed for the purposes of resisting government tyranny combined with the fact that tyrants almost always disarm their population, I think government regulating our guns is like a fox guarding a hen house.
Maybe you’re right about the founders’ intent, but there is no way a group of private individuals could overthrow our government anymore. It’s just such a silly assertion given the technologies the government has at its disposal — the founders’ obviously never anticipated that, so your point to me is moot.
The Mujaheddin successfully resisted the invasion of the Soviets (I realize they had American supplied stinger missiles). There was the Finns during WWII, the North Vietnamese.
The USA spends more on Defense than the next 10 countries do combined. It’s a fantasy to think that a group of private individuals could overthrow our government, especially with the weapons you’re talking about. It would take much more than that.
Some charts say we spend more than the next 15 countries. Some say the next 6. The numbers are all over the place. It is a fact that we spend a lot, but we actually don’t know what some nations, such as China and Russia, spend because there is a lot of spending going on behind the scenes that we have no clue about.
Bottom line, if we don’t spend the money on defense, we will eventually be defenseless.
EJ Its even worse than that. Those defense numbers everyone sites are self reported numbers generally.
China for instance, does not include the cost of building new weapons but only maintenance on existing weapons. We include salaries which are pretty good comparably. They pay people squat. Do not forget that the PLA is one of the largest owners of many of China’s multinationals, State owned companies traded on international exchanges with “class b” shares.
Well, yes, you have got a good point there but I am asking the government to do that for me. So I can feel safer. When a government turns its guns on its people, say as in Kent State, there is a huge public outcry. We have not yet descended to the level of a third world country run by despots. I hope we never do. Should that happen I will stand with you with my hoe in hand.
You have every right to feel as safe as you want. You do not, however, have the right or authority to infringe upon my rights and desires in order to accommodate your feelings.
If it is a matter of safety, sure I do. We all have to buckle up now don’t we? Was a time when we could ride unencumbered and not be penalized or stopped for a seat belt check. Is a time coming when we will be stopped for weapons check and proper documentation? Oh, that already happens? Imagine.
As long as I can ask people who are here illegally to do the same.
Sorry, only uniformed officers can do so. Are you one?
Not wearing a seat belt endangers no one but the individual hence it’s none of government’s business. Any sort of random “checks” are a clear violation of the fourth amendment.
Well, that may be your opinion but apparently the state police feel differently. I have gone through a checkpoint for seatbelts. Buckle up is the law in Maine, correct?
It is the law, but that doesn’t mean it’s right.
Couldn’t agree with you more Bonnie. Thanks for speaking your mind. It is time to take care of this country and I see too few interested in doing that. Too many do not seem to want to ‘give back’ in any meaningful way. They make their riches off of workers and consumers often paying low wages and overcharging for products and then cry when talk of increasing their tax rate occurs, which is not really an increase since they were intended to be a temporary cutback from a rate that sustained the country. Bad policy and it needs to go.
Please tell us what is the proper amount of “giving back”? Is there ANY limit or is it just that nobody should have more than any one else?
If you cant give a definitive answer, please don’t answer at all.
Asking people who hoard money and think only of their needs to “give back” is a fool’s game. You could ask them to give back .000000001% and it would still be too horrible of a cross to bear. They would rather hide their hoard in the Cayman Islands or Switzerland than give anything back. With the possible exception of Bill Gates and a few others, most of the uber wealthy in this country are only concerned with themselves, oh yes, and getting more money.
I did not ask what “they” want to give, but what DO YOU THINK (feel) “they” should give.
Whether “they” are greedy is not the freaking issue, except to you and your fellow liberal progressives.
Sorry, I seem to have struck a nerve. I hope that money brings you happiness and that someday, somehow you have enough money to satisfy you. I used to peruse it seven days a week, but never seemed to have enough. I stopped lusting after money about ten years ago and have always had more than enough since.
You have struck a nerve??? that is your dumbest statement yet.
I was asking how much do the “1%” have to give to make you happy.
I have enough to be happy and live on under $20K a year.
What a ridiculous statement to make. Of course those dedicated to accumulating wealth will always have more. That is not what I have spent my life doing so I am not wealthy. I am happy with what I have and what I have accomplished. That said my tax rate of 25% on a less than average annual income is proportionally more than Romney’s disclosed 13% on his annual income. That disparity needs to be addressed. And, many in the 1% agree.
Still no answer, which figures.
Which disparity? That you pay under $3000 taxes and Romney pays over $3000000 for more or less the same services?
Bonnie just has a case of the liberal “guilts”. If she wants, she is free to help out at the homeless shelter or food pantry or maybe even with a check if she so chose. But she doesn’t. No reason to actually dirty her hands. It is so much easier to ask the government to force her to write a check to the IRS so she can assuage her guilt. That way she could return to her nice warm Cape Elizabeth “middle class” home.
Ah, but the DOJ reports homicides by firearms is down. Could that be because of strict gun laws? Too complex an issue to know. But it does poke some holes in Keith’s argument.
Study the data and you will see a correlation between the decline in homicides by firearms and the wave of concealed carry and castle doctrine laws that swept the country over the past 15 years. (And the expiration of the worthless assault weapon ban!)
I did do some looking. Any correlation touted is spurious to say the best. There will be no direct cause-effect link to be found. As I said, much too complex to know. But I can see how gun proponents would see that link.
The link is clear. By eliminating needless restrictions on our rights, more citizens are able to arm and protect themselves. Criminals can no longer count on cowering, helpless victims to prey upon. Many of us are packing and we will fight back.
Regression to a wild, wild west mentality will not move us forward. But pack if you must. Let us know how many criminals you have thwarted from time to time.
I keep hearing about this “wild west” mentality implying that people will be shooting each other in the streets over petty conflicts. Look at the places in America where that actually happens on a regular basis.
I was referring to the “many of us are packing and we will fight back” comment. Sure sounded like a lawless frontier to me.
What sounds lawless about “fighting back” against those who would do you harm?
Put it back in the context and I think you will understand if you think a bit about it.
Guns don’t kill people; Americans kill people.
actually guns do kill people that is why there were invented. In fact if they do not kill then they were used wrong.
Wasn’t this the same federal government that was running guns to Mexican cartels?
Please, there have been NO HOMOCIDES BY FIREARMS! period
By definition any homocides BY firearms would be one firearm killing another.
Homocides have been committed by humans WITH firearms, but never BY the firearm itself.
Yes, of course. I guess that is my point through all this. Humans with firearms raise the level of danger you are surrounded by.
Bonnie Porta
Top 1% of all earners pay 40% of the Federal Income taxes. Top 10% of earners pay nearly 70% of all Federal Income taxes. 90% of the earners only pay 30% of the overal take. Does this seem fair? The left should be focusing on how to get the 90% to contribute their fair share and how to improve themselves. Instead the left, from Comrade Obama on down are playing class warfare as they have no other ideas.
The bottom 99% contribute 99.99999999999999% of the blood, limbs and lives to the defense of our country.
This is such a tired argument and this is why: http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/Donald-Marron/2011/0728/Why-do-half-of-Americans-pay-no-federal-income-tax . Oh my, could it be because they are poor? Looks like it to me.
The economic top 1% of the population now own 70% of all financial assets. Their after tax incomes have tripled since 1970 all due to the advantages in the tax codes. Does this seem fair?
The class warfare is not coming from Pres. Obama the Republicans started that years ago with the building of tax advantages for the wealthy.
What you are forgetting is actually how much the top 10% of our nations wealth they actually control.
Keith, cigarettes and drugs are inanimate objects. Should they be unregulated?
Leon Nason, I take it that you are privy to why that inmate was being kept at EMMC. If not then I believe that your taking potshots at a jail that has had vast experience with dealing with suicidal inmates and out of control inmates. If the Sheriff called for two Corrections Officers at a time to sit with this inmate then I’m guessing there was a very good reason.
I would suggest that you apply for a job as a Corrections Officer at your local jail, (they are always hiring). That way you could get up close and personal with what they are dealing with. You might also find that you are being vastly underpaid for what you deal with as a Corrections Officer.
Bonnie Porta – Congratulations on being wealthy. Now, if you want to get out your checkbook and write a big fat check to the government, then go ahead. I’m sure that if enough of the wealthy people write those big fat checks, then not only will you feel better, the rest of us won’t have to put up with higher unemployment, less pay, higher cost of goods and services, and a falling dollar.
Raising taxes ALWAYS reduces the revenue to the government, and it ALWAYS hurts the middle class and the poor.
Romney/Ryan 2012. The only HOPE we have for the CHANGE America needs.
And when the Repubs are in charge the rich ALWAYS get richer while the rest ALWAYS pay the price! They whine about having to make cuts or not being able to hire someone if they have to pay more taxes. Maybe they could just not buy a new summer home or hide that extra money offshore then no cuts would have to be made and they could hire employees. HOPE and CHANGE will never be a part of the Republican mantra unless it means hoping for new tax breaks and keeping more change in their pocket instead of paying their fair share!
You want everyone to pay their “fair share”, implement the Fair Tax and get rid of the income tax and the IRS.
And, you’re right, hope and change, at least the Obama bankrupting version, will never be part of the Republican mantra. We believe in cutting spending and living within our means, not enslaving a nation with unearned and unnecessary government entitlements.
Then why do the Romney and Ryan budgets proposals actually increase the deficit? Why do they both want increases in spending on Defense when the Pentagon has asked for cuts? Talk about hypocrisy. Those defense contractors loooooooove their government spending.
The Pentagon has asked for cuts because the President told them to ask for cuts. I will agree with you that Congress has a penchant for continued building of ships and planes that the Pentagon hadn’t requested.
It is not about raising taxes. It is about ending what was supposed to be temporary tax cuts and restoring tax rates to a level that this country needs in order to be a thriving society.
This country will never be thriving as long as the out-of-control-spending is going on in Congress, lead by the Spender-in-Chief, himself. By the way, if you want tax rates at a level that will support our government, you’ll have to take all the money that the rich have, all the money that the middle class have, and a good portion of the money the poor have.
Our debt to GDP is 104%, up from the 65% that was under Bush. That’s all on Obama. And the ignorant, uninformed, dependent slaves in this country want to give him another 4 years. America will not survive another Obama term in office.
By the way, the slaves I’m referring to are those that have their hands out waiting for the government to give them stuff.
Let’s see, the deficit increased by how much under Bush? Get real. And, who gave us tax cuts that gutted the revenue side and affected the GDP? It is what 8 years of Bush left us with. And you blame that on Obama? I have a few charts that would show you a different picture. But I doubt you would be interested in anything, anything at all that cast Obama in a positive light. I am disappointed because he has not been progressive enough, but at least we are not going backward. Eleven years is what it took to pull us out of The Depression. This collapse we are struggling to contain will take more than 4 or even 8 years to recover from. Obama predicted that and he was correct.
During 8 years of Bush, the deficit increased by 5.85 trillion, most of which came from the last two years of his administration when the Dems had control of both houses of Congress. Obama has surpassed the Bush rise in less than one term, and things are not getting better. His spending policies have extended the recession and caused the unemployment rate to remain high. His refusal to work with the Republicans has caused a roadblock in the Senate, lead by his number one lacky, Senator Reid.
Obama is a failure, the worst in our history. Jimmy Carter is smiling now because he won’t go to his grave being cast as the worst president.
“Most of which came from the law two years” — that’s a lie. It came from the Bush tax cuts, the wars, and the unfunded medicare expansion. Quit being dishonest. It’s awful.
We get that you hate liberals, but quit trying to create a basis for it by re-writing history.
Let’s see. My info has Reagan increasing the debt by 189%, George I by 55%, Clinton by 37%, George II by 115%, and Obama by 16%. Source is the Treasury Dept. What is yours?
That is the usual Obama-defender retort. You can’t use percentages with and increasing number, you have to use actual dollars added. Try again.
No, I beg your pardon, but percentages give a much more accurate figure. Always have, always will. Just like tax rates. The percentages tell the story not the amount paid. Romney’s 13% is a far cry from my 25%. What he is left with proportionally is a lot more than I am left with in terms of disposable income. I resent that my less than average annual income is taxed at a higher rate than his obscenely large annual income is. And that all gets hidden in actual dollars, just like the increases in the debt get hidden in actual dollars.
If you have $500 and you add $500 dollars to it, you’ve increased it by 100%.
If you have 10,000,000,000,000 (trillion) dollars and you add 5,000,000,000,000 to it, then you’ve increased it by 50%.
By you’re way of thinking, the person that added $500 dollars to an already existing $500 dollars is worse than a person that adds 5 trillion to a 10 trillion dollar debt.
Percentages don’t mean a thing unless you’re using the same baseline for the comparisons.
As a note, Obama has added nearly 6 trillion to the debt. Adding 6,000,000,000,000 to 10,000,000,000,000 is a 60% increase, not a 16% increase. Your figures are wrong.
How the heck do you think business talk about revenue growth? by percentage. If you add 500 dollars debt to already 500 dollars debt then yes you did do worst? Do you know how to do math? They are the exact same baseline because they are the same exact country.
?????????????????????????
Okay EJ I have to admit based on looking at the national debt clock for 2008 and 2012 that you are indeed correct. I will try to backtrack and find the original source for the chart I found and see how in the world they came up with the figures they are using. I think most of us would like to see that figure come down. But, those in the field seem to think it is not as big a problem as those of us on the street: http://www.frbsf.org/econrsrch/wklyltr/2000/el2000-37.html . I do think it is fair to place blame where blame is due. I stand corrected.
And, I found it without much trouble and the chart is indeed a ‘pants on fire’ presentation. Here is the scoop: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/a-bogus-chart-on-obama-and-the-debt-gets-a-new-lease-on-life/2011/09/28/gIQAx40Y6K_blog.html
Hat’s off to you. There is a lot of deception out there. I trust no source completely, and check many sources when I’m not sure about something.
Here is an update on all this:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/the-presidents-news-conference–and-readers-respond-on-pelosis-debt-chart/2011/10/06/gIQALoq4QL_blog.html . It seems this is a very complex issue and there are several ways you can come up with debt increase figures. One does come up with the 16% figure, but all others settled on around a 20%, far and away less than a
50%-60% increase.
From CBS News. This will give you a better idea of the increase in the debt.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57400369-503544/national-debt-has-increased-more-under-obama-than-under-bush/
I read your article. Note that it was dated 10/11, and does not include the addition to the debt so far this year. Also, it fudges the numbers by using fancy math that doesn’t really hold up when put to the straight math test,
What about tax breaks and loopholes for the wealthy so they can pay less percentage in taxes then others? Is that not welfare and them having “their hands out waiting for the government to give them stuff”?
And let’s not forget Corporate Welfare, money to subsidize industries, like Tobacco and Alchohol, that do quite well on their own. Funny how Big Business may denounce Big Government, but does not turn down the handouts paid for by us “Little People”.
I am against ALL subsidies, including tobacco and oil. I am particularly against the wind and solar subsidies, since there is no return on either one, and they are making a lot of people rich before they file for bankruptcy. Maine is the recipient of far too many 400 foot monstrosities, and will have to put up with them when the wind industry goes under. And Mainers aren’t benefiting from having these wind turbines ruining their state.
I have always been against tax breaks and loopholes. But, your Congressmen, especially on the Democrat side, make sure the breaks and loopholes are in the tax laws so their buddies will keep feeding them the campaign money and perks. Both sides are guilty, but it has been when the Dems are in charge that most of the tax laws have been written.
C’mon, EJ. Bush left the wheelhouse just before the country hit the iceberg. Even *I* don’t say it was a nice cruise till Obama took over.
Admittedly, Obama inherited the second worst economy in the last 60 years (Carter left Reagan a much worse economy). But, Obama is using failed tactics to get us out of the recession. FDR proved that we can’t spend our way out of a recession. It was the Reagan blueprint that Obama should have gone by, but he’s a far left progressive, and he only uses Reagan’s name if he thinks it will help him get votes.
Your comment here is pretty much erroneous on all counts. I really don’t understand how you can so obviously ignore facts.
Just because you can’t refute them, you claim they are erroneous. Typical.
I guess you missed the Carter years when interest rates and unemployment were in the double digits. I guess you missed the gas lines and rising prices. And I guess you must have missed that the world was destined to freeze because of global cooling. (just thought I’d throw that one in there)
You realized Regean had a lot of deficient spending right?
All the presidents over the past 80 years have run deficits. Obama’s spending, however, is making his predecessors look like Boy Scouts. Oops, shouldn’t have used the ‘b’ word in the same sentence as the “O” word.
You were just given facts that Bush and Reagan have both grew the deficit more the Obama.
The “facts” were wrong. Read this:
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57400369-503544/national-debt-has-increased-more-under-obama-than-under-bush/
That’s not how taxation works. If it was, it’d be like not having a speed limit and asking people to set their own.
Your ALWAYS claim is junk and untrue. Your claims generally are never true.
Since you’re a big lib, you really don’t know how taxes are supposed to work because you’ve been brainwashed. My ALWAYS claim is true, an history proves it. Obama’s policies won’t work, and history also proves it. That is if you read the history books that haven’t been modified by the lefties.
Everything in your comment is irrelevant. Voluntary taxation is not how taxation works. Like I said, it’s like trying to have a voluntary speed limit.
And the more the government raises taxes on the rich, the more they send their money overseas, the more our jobs go overseas, and the more the middle class and poor suffer. Obama has been the biggest outsourcer of jobs in our history. And he wants to outsource millions more if he gets a second term. (which, by the way, he ain’t gittin)
You are, once again, wrong. The wealthy as well as corporations, have been given tax breaks and loopholes forever. Where are all these jobs that such breaks should produce? Overseas? Ya, that was my thought too, EJ.
Because of unnecessary government regulations, high fees and taxes on businesses, easing of trade from “preferred” nations, no tariffs, etc. That’s why the jobs are overseas, because our government it hostile to businesses.
You do more for liberal causes with your non logic than any liberal could with his facts. You are an eloquent spokes man for the left.
You wish. But, you may be right. After all, the left wouldn’t know the truth if it hit them square between the eyes.
Thank you for helping us, EJ. God works in strange ways, no?
This is in response to patom1’s comment: “The bottom 99% contribute 99.99999999999999% of the blood, limbs and lives to the defense of our country.”
Actually, a very small portion of the 99% donate their blood, limbs, and lives to the defense of this country. Less than 1% are in uniform at any one time.
“Less than 1% are in uniform at any one time”? What the heck does that mean, “at any one time”? Wounded veterans no longer in uniform don’t count?
Less than 1 percent of the total population of the United States are in uniform at the same time. Veterans and retirees are NOT in uniform any more. Still, even if you include all active duty, retired, and veterans, it comes nowhere close to 99%, as inferred by patom1.
You mean “implied.” I took his point to mean that 99% of soldiers ain’t no fortunate sons.
To whit, Honkytonk: no senators’ nor representatives’ offspring served in Iraq.
What they are saying (which you know but are trying to obscure ) is that the ranks of the armed forces are comprised almost entirely of people from middle & low income households.
At one time it was deemed honorable for the children of the wealthy & powerful to serve in the officer corps of our armed forces. that time is long gone, and with only a few exceptions (John McCain’s son being one) No polititions children serve in the armed forces. The sacrifice required to defend our country is borne by the 99%.
Perhaps if we mandated service for the children of congress & senate appointees we would not be so quick to rush to war.
I think service should be mandated for everyone, regardless of wealth or stature. A few years in uniform certainly makes one look differently on this country.
I would even require a President to have some time in uniform. After all, the President is the Commander-in-Chief, so shouldn’t he or she know what the military is all about?
You have to be in the military to know “what the military is all about?” Does the same logic apply to being gay, so you can know what it’s all about?
Nope. There’s lots of gay examples on TV and in the malls.
If you’re getting your examples of gay people from TV and malls, then you have no idea what it’s like to be a gay person.
I am glad we don’t have the draft…I much prefered serving in an all-volunteer force.
I’ve heard it said that this is the first Presidential election with neither candidate having any military experience……
I think the idea of forcing someone to fight for freedom is ironic.
I think the idea that people believe that their entitled to freedom without putting any effort or sacrifice into it is ironic. And that’s a big problem in this country.
EJ a lot people down want to pay taxes, our freedom comes with a price, and some of it, has to be paid for with money.
I see freedom as the birthright of every human. It can certainly be infringed upon and must be defended, but a birthright nonetheless. I have yet to see any documents or writings from our founders mentioning a need to “earn” our freedoms. What I do recall, however, is that we are “endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights”.
Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. But, these things are not guaranteed, and are not the responsibility of the government to provide. Every American should be willing to give as much as they get. If they don’t, then they have no right to complain.
I understand that, in the world we live in, these things are not guaranteed. I agree that it is not the role of government to provide them as he who gives can also take away, but if the role of government is not to protect our rights, than what is it?
The role of government is clearly spelled out in the Constitution. If we could just get back to that, we’d be all right.
Social engineering much?! ;-)
One of my favorite CCR songs was Fortunate Son:
Songwriters: JOHN C. FOGERTY
Some folks are born to wave the flag,
Ooh, they’re red, white and blue.
And when the band plays “Hail to the chief”,
Ooh, they point the cannon at you, Lord,
It ain’t me, it ain’t me, I ain’t no senator’s son, son.
It ain’t me, it ain’t me; I ain’t no fortunate one, no,
Yeah!
Some folks are born silver spoon in hand,
Lord, don’t they help themselves, oh.
But when the taxman comes to the door,
Lord, the house looks like a rummage sale, yes,
It ain’t me, it ain’t me, I ain’t no millionaire’s son, no.
It ain’t me, it ain’t me; I ain’t no fortunate one, no.
Some folks inherit star spangled eyes,
Ooh, they send you down to war, Lord,
And when you ask them, “How much should we give?”
Ooh, they only answer More! more! more! yoh,
It ain’t me, it ain’t me, I ain’t no military son, son.
It ain’t me, it ain’t me; I ain’t no fortunate one, one.
It ain’t me, it ain’t me, I ain’t no fortunate one, no no no,
It ain’t me, it ain’t me, I ain’t no fortunate son, no no no,
And what price do you put on a life? A limb? A mind?
Where would your precious 1% go if the bottom 99% refused to pay the blood tax that protects them?
It’s not the bottom 99%. The vast majority of the bottom 99% would run from a fight if they thought they might break a nail or mess up their hair. It’s the military and the true patriots that are willing to give their all to keep this country free and strong. And that percentage is quite small.
Baseless.
Baseless to you, maybe. But it’s true. Would you run or fight? I think you’ve answered that question over and over.
I think this comment of yours is of the most disgusting ones you’ve made — that’s saying something. You know NOTHING about me and what I’ve been through. Don’t make these awful assumptions about me simply because you don’t like the fact that I call you out when you are lying. Quit making baseless generalizations about others because you disagree with them. Like I said, it’s disgusting. Stop it.
Read my comment. I never indicated which way I thought you would answer the question.
You did and it’s cowardly behavior how you constantly make these awful implications and then pretend you weren’t doing it. It’s disgusting and you should be ashamed of yourself.
Disagree with me all you want on the issues, but at least I’m not on here lying day in and day out and baselessly insulting others.
There you go calling me a liar again. And, no, I’m not ashamed of myself.
If your comment was so innocent, then explain what you were trying to imply. You said I answered the question over and over again on here, so tell me what that answer is. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt. Here is your chance to prove you’re not cowardly.
EJ you have said, a lot of low things here, and lied more lies then I can count. You just called someone a coward, someone who has stoodup to you many times. I seem to think, that wolfs stands up to you every day, because of that, I think he’d fight. What do you think, those of us who do not get paid to post here are doing? We are fighting, most of us would lay down our lives for this country, if need be. We might not all fight the same way, but we fight just the same. I just lost any respect, I had for you.
Wolfie has been on a campaign of calling me a liar and hypocrite for months now. I express my beliefs and opinions on here. For some reason, he can’t handle the fact that we all don’t think or believe the way he does. Well, I’m sick and tired of his constant insinuations and name calling. So, I fought back, and what do I get… trampled on because I did the same thing that he has been doing to me for months.
By the way, I have never intentionally lied about anything in these comments. There are two sides to just about every story, and I see both sides. I choose which side to believe and respect the choice of others to believe differently. Wolfie could learn something from that.
As a note, I didn’t say which way he would answer the question about running or fighting. So, why did you take it the way you did?
I’m not calling you a liar or a hypocrite without basis. I don’t come on here and sling mud for the fun of it. I’m correcting you when you are clearly making things up. I back up the things I say with REAL facts. I don’t resort to misinformation and baseless personal attacks. For you to say that I would run and not fight for my country and what I believe in? That’s disgusting and you clearly implied it. Don’t try to step back from what you said. That’s cowardly. You were clearly implying what you believed the answer was.
1. You rarely produce facts.
2. You are an expert at personal attacks.
3. I never said you would run and not fight.
4. I’m no coward.
Then what were you trying to imply? You said you think I’ve answered the question over and over — so what did you think I answered that question with?
If you can’t tell me what you were honestly trying to imply, then yes, you are acting cowardly. Saying awful things in an indirect way and then refusing acknowledge what you did is cowardly.
You are a strange one to be speaking of facts. You have no credibility in the facts or personal attacks department.
His comment doesn’t merit a response.
Do you know how percentages work? Because looking at your post above as well as this one, I am starting to think you do not.
Pat Martin,
I appreciate your comments on the predation of cats upon local wildlife. It always amazes me that the same people who decry wind turbines because of bird strikes are the same ones letting their cats roam.
And the S–T in my garden!
That’s what god has said about us humans.
Leon Nason, Heather Estey, Bonnie Prota: good letters.
Pat Martin: I formerly lived in a town that adopted a “cat leash law”. It was instigated by bird lovers. I don’t know if it helped the birds any but the Chipmunk population exploded until it was finally rescinded. Din’t affect us; our cat was an indoors cat. The town was a national laughing stock.
I’m a cat owner and a gardener. I agree with Pat Martin.
Thanks for your LTE Kathy. You hit on the main point pretty well.
To answer Momma’s question of how crimes get thwarted, I don’t know if I have thwarted any attempts personally, but then its more than likely that if a crook came into a store where I was shopping and saw my sidearm (s)he left for easier hunting grounds as do most according to the 20/20 interviews with a group of felons in prison. More than 60% said they did just that. That’s a pretty good reduction in crime and it cost the tax payer nothing. No uniforms, no patrol cars, no wages and we even buy our own guns and ammo.
Rather than post several reports, I found an article that cites those official reports supporting the premise that strict controls increase crime rather than reduce it. (http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0210e.asp). Its a longish read, but scroll about 2/3 of the way down the page to find “Gun control and crime”. There are a plethora of statistics in the article from sources that I cite often.
This isn’t a wild west show Momma. There’s no wild west mentality at all. Most ALACs do not go around looking for trouble. We’re not out there hosing down the streets with gunfire. We’re talking (for the most part) about responsible citizens who choose to arm themselves and who are simply out and about and going about their normal daily lives just as you do.
Its not about fear either. I have never lived in fear, but I decided that with the economy being what it is today and violent crime, home invasions, etc. on the rise, likely due to high unemployment, it just makes sense to do whatever I can to reduce the chances of being victimized.
We don’t carry firearms to be cool or to look “B/A”, we carry because we want to be prepared against even the smallest chance that a violent crime might be perpetrated near us just as most people keep a smoke detector and fire extinguisher in their homes. You don’t live in fear of a fire do you? You don’t expect a fire to break out do you? But you have the means on hand to deal with one before the house is destroyed, right?
I’m a 30 year Vet and served a lot of that time in SAC during the Cold War. We put a lot of stock in the Boy Scout motto to Be Prepared. Preparation defeated the Soviets just as it defeats thugs (armed or not) with criminal intent everyday in places like Marden’s or Nicky’s or Macy’s or Pizza Hut or your local branch at TD Bank or Peoples United.
Maine is still among the safest States to live and raise a family, but even here we’ve seen an increase in crime, most likely as a result of the tough economic times we are in right now. Many people are desperate and will resort to robbery to survive. If we weren’t able to bear arms the situation could be much worse.
We, Armed Law Abiding Citizens, don’t have a wild west mentality and we don’t have a victim mentality either. We’re responsible people who choose to be prepared to do what we must to protect our families. They say prevention is worth a pound of cure and that is so very true when it comes to my family’s safety. You’ve said you’d rather die than hurt someone and that’s your choice. As for me, I’d rather die defending my family and rest assured I’ll go down fighting with everything I have before I surrender to some low life thug.
Gotta run. We’re test paddling a couple Neckys at Pushaw today.
Just found this one.
Gotta love those Southern Belles.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/alabama-woman-shoots-home-intruder-to-protect-herself-and-her-ax-and-knife-wielding-daughters/
I’m an Eagle Scout (1970). If I saw you in public, I’d bolt.
Well, at your age maybe you’d just walk real fast. lol
I find it funny that Mitt Romney believes his taxes are too high, yet Romney paid a significantly lower tax rate than his running mate Ryan who makes significantly less money. Quit asking us to pick up your slack Mitt.
Ms. Estey: even more despicable than the behavior of the stepfather is the mother who let it go on, because she “doesn’t want to be lonely.” What can possibly be more important in your life than the safety of your child?
It is all over for the Lefties.
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/romney-steps-fundraising-schedule-ahead-convention-180401459.html
The problem is, Bonnie, Our government has showed us over the past century is that not only will they spend every dollar that we are taxed but that they will spend 1.30 for every dollar we are taxed.
If every dollar that is in the GDP were in the government coffers they would spent 1 and a half times of those dollars.
Government spending must be controlled otherwise the government will spend us into oblivion.
If how, why and where the government spends our money is truly your concern then you should look at all the tax policies that go to benefit the top .01% and the giveaways to corporations in many forms. You have bought the cool ade of the far right Republicans who want nothing more than to increase the bottom line of the wealthy and continue to grow the widening wealth gap.
They count on your ignorance and they prey upon your prejudices to do so.
If I agree that “giveaways” to the “rich” and corporations are wrong, will you agree that giveaways to the lazy of the “poor” are at least as bad? I AM NOT suggesting that the elderly that have worked their entire lives and paid into the SS system or the actually unable should be neglected.
Or do they count on your ignorance and they prey upon your prejudices?
Deleted.