Where is religious tolerance?
This election, more than any other, shows a huge difference between the parties. They have polarized, with the Republicans more to the right and the Democrats moving far to the left with their progressive march against old-time religion. They removed any reference to God from their party platform, but when Mitt Romney and other Republicans criticized them, President Barack Obama had God reinstated. But they had a hard time getting it officially voted in by a voice vote.
The Democratic platform says the party strongly supports Roe v. Wade and a woman’s right to abortion, regardless of ability to pay, but the father has no rights at all.
They support marriage “equality” and equal treatment under law for same-sex couples. Obama is in favor of gay marriage. The progressive movement wants to de-Christianize America.
The Republican platform calls for a constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said, “The United States deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others; our commitment to religious tolerance goes back to the very beginning of our nation.”
But at the same time with the mandate under Obamacare, Christians are being forced to violate their belief and conscience by having to pay for contraception and the morning-after pill for their employees in their schools, hospitals and charities. Where is this religious tolerance?
We must vote Republican to get this country back on track.
Thomas Coleman Sr.
Dedham
Obama created economic uncertainty
No one disputes that when Barack Obama assumed office, he inherited a difficult situation. Instead of accepting responsibility for the uncertainty his policies created, he blames everyone but himself.
The private sector, the job-creating engine of the U.S. economy, is frozen due to uncertainty. For personsin the private sector to make decisions involving spending, hiring or expanding, they need to have some degree of certainty in three specific areas: labor costs, energy costs and taxes.
Decision-makers need to project labor costs. Due to the confusion and uncertainty created by Obamacare, labor costs cannot be confidently calculated.
Decision makers need to have a grip on energy costs. Without a cohesive energy policy, billions wasted on failed solar companies, a Middle East strategy in ruins and an ongoing war on fossil fuels, Obama has failed to create any stability in the energy sector, which is necessary for making good business decisions.
Obama has failed to create stability with taxes. He engages in class warfare and threatens to raise taxes on the very people deciding to grow or start new businesses.
Imagine you’re the person responsible for deciding whether to build a new production plant. If you can’t project your energy costs, tax rates or employee costs, how can you proceed?
Obama inherited a difficult situation, but he is personally responsible for the economic uncertainties his policies have created.
Let’s correct the mistake we made in 2008. It’s time for Republican Mitt Romney.
Dave Neilson
Rockland
A Simple Contest Proposal
Let’s start today by having a contest. How many companies, businesses, manufacturers, self-employed and marketing jobs have been destroyed in this district on the watch of our current politicians?
Make a list and get it to me! The longest list will be published, and our politicians will be held accountable. Party and politics as usual are done. Instead, “We the People” can get it done.
Now on to another topic of interest.
I have been informed that not one “tombstone vote” will be counted this year. Families with members in nursing facilities will be monitoring voting practices. It has been reported that one family member in a nursing home with the mental capacity of a 5-year-old has voted in elections during the past 30 years.
Not this year!
It is amazing how our local university has the highest voting percentage in the state. Just why is that? Please be assured that voting for legal residents who are capable and eligible for voting will be protected this year. This year, your vote will count! Voting gimmicks will not fly this time around.
Enough. Our better days start now.
Mike Nadeau
Fort Kent
No smoking
If in fact the science that documents studies showing negative effects on others from secondhand smoke in open areas has been peer-reviewed and accepted as fact within the health community, then tobacco should be outlawed, plain and simple. No exemptions. If the stuff is that bad, make it illegal. That will end any continuing debate.
But, is secondhand smoke (especially in outdoor areas) as dangerous as reported? Growing up in the 50s and 60s, when almost everyone smoked, many of us were repeatedly exposed to large quantities of secondhand smoke in confined environs every time we entered a car, plane, train, movie theater, public arena or, for that matter, in our own homes and those of our neighbors. Given what the science and anti-smoking campaigns lead us to believe, one would think that everyone over the age of 55 would be dead by now.
As long as tobacco remains legal, smokers do have rights. I for one have no problem with allowing someone to do what is still legal even if I get the occasional whiff while in the outdoors. Given the exposure I had as a youth, I doubt a few more diluted smoke inhalations will be detrimental to my health.
Brian Steinwand
St. Albans
Re-elect Longley
I am writing to urge our community to re-elect Judge Susan Longley as Waldo County judge of probate. As an adult education instructor for RSU#3’s family literacy program, Students and Parents in Cooperative Education (SPICE), I work with families with young children, children who will follow in their parents’ new role-modeling, behavior which demonstrates the understanding that education is the key to their futures.
Occasionally, our families need the court system to help them onto this path. For privacy reasons, I cannot name families here; but time and time again, I have been told of the fairness, even-mindedness, and excellent solutions they had been given by the court system. They said
that their judge had been thorough, thoughtful, careful and compassionate. Every time I heard this and asked who this judge had been, these families always answered, “Susan Longley.”
Beth Buechler
Brooks
Dave Nielsen, what failed solar companies are you talking about? Solyndra was one (1) company which failed among many hundreds which have succeeded. Just ask the republicans in the midwest.
Are you admitting that the tax breaks for the “job creators” which have been in effect for nearly 10 years, have failed, that the giveaways did not result in corporations creating jobs?
Do you know that we have had a 31 month period of adding jobs to the private sector, that the deficit has been reduced every year of Obama’s term, that the stock market is near the highest in 4 years?
But you would rather go back to the spend, spend, spend policies of the last administration and reverse the slow progress Obama has made.
Amazing.
maybe one company but you forgot to mention how many billion they were given before they failed and the high ups in the company took the money and ran with it
What billions??? They were given a $527 million loan guarantee, besides the VC investments.
After spending more than a million dollars, nearly a year of hearings including issuing two subpoenas, and acquiring 300,000 documents, members of Congress failed to present any evidence of political wrongdoing.
But that did not stop pro-oil organizations such as the American Energy Alliance, the Koch-backed Americans for Prosperity, Karl Rove’s Crossroads Grassroots Policy Strategies, and Let Freedom Ring from spending close to $11 million on ads between April 1 and October 1 2012 attacking the Solyndra loan
or mentioning Solyndra as part of a broader attack on clean energy investment. Apparently you fell for them.
In a 2001 study conducted by the National Academy of Sciences (Energy Research at DOE: Was It Worth It? Energy Efficiency and Fossil Energy Research 1978 to 2000) concluded that a few clean energy technology companies returned about $30 billion on a R&D investment of $400 million. There is much more information in that report than I could possibly post here so I hope you and others will look it up.
I won’t get into the business of venture capitalism, which was also involved in Solyndra, but suffice it to say that most VC invested companies fail
Whoaa, there fella, you need to tone down the rhetoric, and change your “b” to an “m”
I know that inflating the numbers is too hard to pass up, but the secret to a good lie is to try and make it believable.
Mr. Coleman, you have it backward. Religious zealots are trying to impose their religious beliefs on others. They have no right to do that.
You see, ryanrobins, having a government run by religion is only wrong if that religion is Islam ;) .
Mr. Coleman, unless the government is forcing you to violate your religious beliefs, then your freedom of religion is not under attack. Legalizing same sex marriage will not force you, or your church, to marry a same sex couple. The ACA will not force you to use birth control or have an abortion. “Religious tolerance” does not mean letting the religious right trample over the rights and freedoms of other American citizens.
No, “Freedom of Religion” means that anyone can use religion to discriminate at will whenever they want in any situation they want. THAT’S what they’re aiming for.
Obama’s mandate under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act does indeed force people and religious institutions to violate their religious beliefs. Where have you been on this issue? Specifically it mandates individuals and religious institutions, except for houses of worship, to purchase or insure against their conscience their employees with insurance policies that cover contraceptives, abortifacients (drug causing abortions), and sterilization procedures. This is a direct violation of their 1st Amendment right to freedom of religion. The Amendment specifically states, “Congress shall make no law….prohibiting the free exercise thereof (religion)…”
Also, if same-sex couples are issued licenses to marry it’s only a matter of time when the state and the court systems will mandate teaching a new concept of marriage as consisting of children with two moms or two dads. Public schools will also be mandated to encourage students to experiment with different forms of sexuality including homosexual acts in an effort to normalize homosexuality. Thus legalizing so-called same-sex marriage will indeed violate family and religious values in addition to marginalizing natural parents, especially fathers. If you doubt this will happen, then just think again. Homosexual activists as part of their national agenda want to use SSM as a stepping stone to attain their goal of normalizing as fully as possible homosexuality.
Oh god, not you. Show me in the ACA where people are forced to use birth control. If you can’t, then your religious beliefs are not being violated.
“This is a direct violation of their 1st Amendment right to freedom of religion. ” – No, it’s not. Unless the religious person is forced to personally use birth control, nothing is being violated. There is nothing in the 1st Amendment that lets a person force their religious beliefs on someone else. Deal with it.
As for the rest of your post, enough of your slippery slope fear mongering. You have proven time and time again that you have no respect for the rights of your fellow citizens. You have shown that your dogma matters more than the children you supposedly care about. I have said it before and I have said it again, people like you are the reason I attempted suicide. If you want to continue telling LGBT children that they are abominations, fine. Your hate speech is still free speech, but just know, that whenever you see an article about an LGBT teen commiting suicide from bullying, just know that you contributed to the society that let that happened. I’m sure you would be so proud.
Yes HIM.
Our resident Chicken Little…
You miss the point on religious freedom issue: employers and individuals will be forced to pay for insurance coverage against their conscience. For instance, why should employers or self-insurers be force to pay for health insurance for themselves and/or others that covers acts that are in direct violation of their religious convictions? Obviously Obama and his Administration recognize this issue as a valid one, otherwise they would not have bothered to make a religious exception for houses of worship. Regrettable they failed to recognize that religious freedoms applies not just to houses of worship but to individuals and religious institutions as well.
As to your last paragraph, you are essentially resorting to name-calling and false accusations of bullying for which there is no justification. My advice to you is this: “If you can’t stand the heat get out of the kitchen” or this forum intended for open discussion. No one including myself desires forcing or encouraging anyone to commit suicide.
“You miss the point on religious freedom issue: employers and individuals will be forced to pay for insurance coverage against their conscience. ” – Not a religious freedom issue. Get over it. Until they are forced to use birth contol, no rights are being violated.
“”If you can’t stand the heat get out of the kitchen”” – I would say the same to you. If you can’t handle all of the dead LGBT teens, maybe you should stop trying to make them feel like garbage to the point where they kill themselves. You can keel telling yourself that you are not part of the problem. Maybe that’s what you need to do to try to wash the blood off of your hands. But it’s not true. You and the rest religious right share responsibility for each dead teen because you activly help to create the exact environment where they will be driven to suicide.
“No one including myself desires forcing or encouraging anyone to commit suicide.” – Then stop doing things that drive LGBT teens to suicide. Your hollow platitudes are just that, hollow. You expect me to believe your crap while you will continue telling LGBT teens that any loving relationship they might have is a disorder and an abomination. And, after you are done breaking them down, you are shocked that they kill themselves? That’s crap. You should be ashamed of yourself, but that would be too much common decency to expect from you.
Then get out of the business of providing insurance. If you want to provide healthcare, you have to follow the standards set by the law. That’s not preventing you from religious worship, it’s preventing you from providing sub-standard healthcare.
Because it’s the fair thing to do in this democracy.
Here’s a slippery slope for you: my employer doesn’t “agree” with homosexuality. It is “against his religion.” By even offering my the option of healthcare, he feels he is endorsing my sinful lifestyle, so he feels that his religion compels him to not offer it.
Or the single women who has sex. Why should her employer who feels that sex outside is sinful be “forced” to cover her std treatments or pregnancy?
What you are advocating is a crazy-quilt of health coverage based, not on what’s best for the covered, but what the employer feels is best for his or her personal conscience. That means that the employer is forcing those who work for him or her to adhere to the employers religious beliefs.
I’m not a fan of ANY employer forcing a way of life on someone. Give the option and let the employer decide to use or not use it, whether it be birth control coverage or stop-smoking programs. If this law were to force people to take birth control like some employer policies force people to not smoke or chew tobacco, then that’d be one thing. But this law does not do that.
Oh get over it. Every time I have taxes taken out of my paycheck it pays for something that I find morally reprehensible. In your case you want to impose your religious beliefs on someone else by virture of saying you shouldn’t have to pay for something you disagree with. How is that any different than forcing me to pay for wars? The only difference I see is that I recognize that sometimes, as a member of a functioning society, I have to do something I don’t want to do … a lesson my kids learned when they were young.
Good response!
It’s part of being an adult.
No one in anyway should be forced to participate in plans that offer pills to cause death to innocent ones. That is exactly what abortificient drugs do. Maybe you should propose eliminating the religious clause of the 1st Amendment.
Tell that to the parents of innocent children that died in Afganistan and Iraq because of our troops being in their countries . Or is it only the unborn innocent that count??? Personally I think the living count for more than the potentially living.
Why am I forced to pay for killing people? Why am I forced to support multimillion dollar profit oil corporations’?
Your argument has no basis.
Religious affiliated institutions such as hospitals and charities hire people who do not share their religion. Refusing to pay for insurance which covers all benefits would be imposing their beliefs on those individuals.
Since 2000 federal law has required insurance to cover any prescription drug, which is why viagra is covered.
ROFLOL!!!
Man… you’re something else, aren’t you?
See… the reality you’re so afraid of your kids being taught? They already are… in states with no gay marriage.
Once again, you point to gay marriage as the cause of something that is happening without it.
How hysterical!
LOL, violates the Constitution? Says the person who thinks it’s fine to discriminate against people because we don’t like them. Pure hypocrisy.
Actually, the insurance companies will foot the bill by providing contraception, not the religious institutions.
Private healthcare insurance coverage is not free. Because they are in the business to make a profit (and not go broke) the costs of services to the insured is derived from premiums paid by individuals and employers. Under Obamacare all insurance providers are required to cover contraceptives, abortion causing drugs, and sterilization for non-related medical reasons.
which is way cheaper then having a lot of unwanted children.
Well, the unwanted children can be adopted! (Just not by gay people….) It’s that easy!
Well, everyone knows that it isn’t love, compassion, and understanding that makes a good home, instead it is the genital pairing of the parents, nothing more, duh! (sarcasm)
That easy? How many kids are out there waiting for adoption not forthcoming? For that matter, how many have you adopted?
For God’s sake, calm down. Don’t you recognize sarcasm? Don’t you read my other posts on this topic?
Not necessarily. Contraceptives are cheaply and readily available at most drug stores. They’re even cheaper online. There is no justification for the government to violate employer’s and individuals’ 1st Amendment rights. Unless Obama wins the election and stacks the Supreme Court with like minded justices who play loose with First Rights, this effort to curtail religious freedom will fail miserably.
1st Amendment right? What is the difference between what you’re saying and what I said earlier that has gone unanswered? If it’s a RIGHT to say no to offering birth control to an employee, then is it also a right to say no to offering any health coverage to a gay person? Or why stop at birth control? How about STD treatments? Or coverage to unwed mothers? Is it a RIGHT to pick and choose which employee gets what benefit based on what YOU feel is right for them?
Well, of course he won’t answer, it’s too hard of a question. Even if he does reply, he won’t answer anything but instead will put his victim pants on and complain about how his right to discriminate is being violated.
Hey, you still hate me, don’t you? I hope I didn’t cause you to lose too much sleep even though I may have judging from your demeanor. Maybe you should stop now and then to smell a rose. It’ll do wonders to your health and well-being. Also helps to clear muddy minds.
Ha ha, no, while I still do in fact hate you, (probably the only thing you have been right about), I didn’t lose any sleep over you. Do you honestly think I actually care abut what you have to say? I’m kinda shocked at how egotistical you are, thinking you matter that much to me. No no, after I take a minute or less to reply to whatever bigoted statement you make, I go on with my life. In fact, it’s actually a good stress reliever letting loose my frustration on someone who truly deserves it.
Maybe you should stop now and then to see the damage your bigotry causes. You know, like dead LGBT teens. But, if your comments are any indication, you would obviously put your backward dogma before the well being of children, because that is just the type of terrible person you are.
Tell Obama what you just told me. He made an exception for houses of worship but not for other religious organizations and individual conscience. Apparently Obama does not agree with your rationale.
How would your employer know that you’re homosexual in the first place? Or that Suzy likes to sleep around and caught an STD? Is Suzy advertising in the work place that she loves gang-bangs instead of keeping it to herself?
Your employer doesn’t see specifics of why you see a doctor or what is prescribed for medications. If you and Suzy didn’t see the need to advertise your personal life in the work place, where you’re paid to do a job, not socialize, then everyone is covered. Then Suzy can get her STD treatment and you can get your diapers, or whatever your personal activities require you to need.
Nice reply, but you didn’t answer my question. Should an employer have the right to withhold any sort of coverage he or she wants to from employees based on his or her religious convictions?
I do not think you can get the pill by walking into a drug store. People are going to have sex and condoms are just stupid because people will still have sex without having one. Nothing is said that this has to be done through an employeer. Let the government handle it. If the government paid for women to be on the pill we would greatly reduce the amount of welfare and unwanted children and crime. Also there is not religous freedom issue. The person is not being forced to do anything. If you think they have having their religous rights taken away because they are forced to provide their employees somethign that goes against their religon, that is just stupid. I bet they hire gay people. I bet they hire people outside their own faith. The employeer is not being being forced to do anything.
Get real, who’s trying to make your family use contraceptives? An employer has no right to tell an employee, whether they can use contraceptives. In many cases the employer is better off with women using these drugs( less lost work time). Yes you can get over the counter contraceptives, but they’re not as effective. They also do not help with medical problems like I have had. I had and ovary explode, I took the pill to help me get well.
I think that many people ranting against birth control don’t realize that it is used for much more besides preventing pregnancy. They just choose to ignore that little “fact” because it doesn’t fit into their narrative.
You are either misunderstanding what I stated or you are intentionally twisting everything I said. I never suggested that anyone was forcing anyone else to use contraceptives or that an employer would be telling an employee whether he or she can use contraceptives. And nothing was said about denying insurance coverage for contraceptive pills to remedy a medical problem. Reread my original comment at the beginning of this comment section.
You are saying that you think an employer’s religious views on birth control and related issues trumps that of the ordinary citizen’s insurance coverage. You are saying that whatever the employer feels is against his or her religion should not be part of the insurance coverage when it comes to contraception.
I ask you again, do you think that such religious objections will stop at contraception? If Bob can have the view that contraception is evil and not allows that coverage, then what’s to stop Betty from not providing STD coverage, or Bill from not providing coverage for babies born out of wedlock, or Bobbi from covering ED treatments to a gay man? Do you wish for those scenarios to be options as well? And if so, where does it end?
And what about the fact that most employees pay a share of that coverage? Don’t THEY get a say?
Look, I thought you would have it figured out by now. What is creating a religious and moral issue is very simply the difference between medical and non-medical coverage. If contraception in the form of pills is medically prescribed then it’s one thing. But if it is be used to contracept then it’s quite another thing. That is what the issue all boils down to. The Obama Administration fully understands that but it won’t give in. It’s aim is to make abortion acceptable and just another form of contraception.
Also, did you know most contraceptive pills can cause an abortion? Of course Planned Parenthood and its allies will deny this by maintaining the pill does not end a pregnancy. In order to get away with this lie they re-defined pregnancy to mean that a fertilized egg must be implanted in the womb in order for a pregnancy to take place.
Actually “pregnant” means and is still understood by 99% of the English speaking world to mean “with child”. That is the original meaning of “pregnant”. But Planned Parenthood and its allied organizations persists in engaging in deception as usual. They don’t really want people in general to know what the are up to.
This might not mean anything to you but I’ll say it anyhow: That’s how the devil works too, i.e., he uses deception and lies.
“Contraceptives are cheaply and readily available at most drug stores. They’re even cheaper online.”
Unless you’re a poor woman with no health care, I’m not sure you can be so cavalier about contraception access.
Considering how anti-abortion whawell is, you would think he would support contraceptives. There have been studies to suggest that ,”shockingly”, when women are given birth control to use, the abortion rate decreases.
Source: http://healthland.time.com/2012/10/05/study-free-birth-control-significantly-cuts-abortion-rates/
There are all sorts of programs to assist the poor. Let them use that assistance money for contraceptives. Is the taxpayer supposed to take charge of the welfare recipient’s life as well?
All sorts of programs? In Maine? With LePage at the helm?
The plan you call “Obamacare” (which is really called the Affordable Healthcare Act) was modeled after Mr. Romney’s plan for Massachusetts. And, believe it or not, that plan does the same exact thing in that everyone is so up in arms over. http://www.ibisreproductivehealth.org/work/contraception/Reform.cfm
I don’t really have to look up your reference. Romneycare is just several pages long. Obamacare is well over 2,000 pages not counting the tens of thousands of pages of regulations.
Anyway I don’t care if one plan was modeled after the other. I don’t support Obamacare for many reasons and would like to see it repealed as soon as possible.
You don’t care or are just unwilling to acknowledge the truth of ACA being modeled on RomneyCare?
Thomas Coleman- SERIOUSLY?? Here’s the difference between the GOP and Democratic party. The GOP says not only must you believe what we believe but we will force everyone to follow our choices and our beliefs by passing legislation to make sure you do. Mandatory agreement SUPER!! Our rights are our rights and your rights are none existent or negotiable. Pathetic.
The Democratic party say this: believe in religion good for you, but we will not force our beliefs on anyone. Don’t believe in abortion? Don’t get one but we are not in the position to tell anyone they can’t have one. Don’t want to use contraception- don’t use it, but everyone should be able to access medical choices. Someone of the same sex want to marry- none of our business. If you’re an American that alone should enable you to have ALL the same rights as any other American. It’s really not quantum physics Tom.
I don’t happen to believe in war but my taxes are going to pay for all the wars Bush started with no plan to pay for. Why should I pay for your Viagra or vasectomies (which are both covered by insurance) when I may not believe in those medical options? You believe in god? Super duper then pray away your cancer because I don’t believe in oncologists….but here’s the thing….Your rights end where my rights begin.
The GOP can legislate all the crap they want……one word for you….. prohibition….and we all know how THAT worked out.
Your democrat leader Obama is the one that wants government to supply insurance. As long as insurance is private and self paid your tax dollars wont be paying for anyone elses treatment or meds. Obama is the one who pushed Obama care through without any republican support and very little from his fellow democrats
Get it right; OUR President Obama.
Yes, he is the President of all Americans and the republicans, too.
“…your tax dollars won’t be paying for anyone else treatment or meds”. Who do you think pays for those emergency room visits by the uninsured now?
Since bills passed into law require a simple majority in the House and a 60/40 vote in the Senate, your statement about the support for Rmoney/Obama Care is obviously mistaken.
Obama is a moderate republican, and obamacare makes you Purchase insurance from insurance companies. It is a huge windfall profit for the insurance industry, which lobbied hard in it’s behalf. There is nothing socialist about obamacare, it is hyper capitalist.
That has to be the biggest load of crap I have ever had the dis pleasure to read
Well then kindly explain how Obama/Romneycare is socialist.
In a message dated 10/17/2012 8:28:11 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, notifications@disqus.net writes:
(http://disqus.com/)
overtaxedagain wrote, in response to hopperdredgbill:
That has to be the biggest load of crap I have ever had the dis pleasure to read
_Link to comment_ (http://redirect.disqus.com/url?url=http://bangor-launch.newspackstaging.com/2012/10/16/opinion/wednesday-oct-17-2012-religious-tolerance-economics -and-smoking/#comment-685744497:rd3YrDKoaD2RXv2qRAzN3o44Ewc&imp=a9a26c53-efb f-434d-b2f6-2a78a8650207&zone=notifications.clicks&forum=bdn&thread=88815927 7)
Bravo!
David Neilson, “The private sector, the job-creating engine of the U.S. economy, is frozen due to uncertainty. For personsin the private sector to make decisions involving spending, hiring or expanding, they need to have some degree of certainty in three specific areas: labor costs, energy costs and taxes.”
Uncertain? Since Ronald Reagan was in office the top earners have had their tax rate reduced. Every time the reductions went into effect, we were promised that the reductions would lead to more jobs. What they seem to have failed to explain is that those jobs seem to be being created in Asia and Central America. Wages have gone down or remained stagnent in the private sector over the last 20 years regarding purchase power. Energy costs are not regulated in the White House. They are regulated by the private sector.
Mr. Neilson is uncertain about his facts and his history. Thanks for educating him. Think of his uncertainty as creating a job for you to educate him.
The largest uncertainty out there for any businessperson is whether the middle class has the income to buy his or her product. Neilson should be advocating a hike in the minimum wage and passage of the American Jobs Act.
My wife and I have turned away additional business for the last three years. The uncertainty in risking what we have spent 40 years forgoing vacations etc to expand and risk losing all and if sucessful pay 48.5% to the state and federal government in income tax alone is not worth the risk. We inherited from her parents a home in the Carribean. We strive to give 25% to 30% of our income to charity and meet that most years and find that that giving does have a greater effect there. Yes keep advocating Government as the solution of problems. Don’t be surprised when those you propose to help turn agianst you. We will probably become expatriots because our efforts to help are more effective elsewhere and are doing that only because we are too old to fight at home.
And so what’s the excuse that a guy like Romney pays a 1/4 of that rate and makes 20 million a year?
The reason Romney pays a low tax rate is that the US Tax Code allows it. He’s not gaming the system or cheating or doing anything illegal. If he were, the IRS would be all over him. As a taxpayer, I use the tax code to my advantage by claiming all the deductions and credits allowed under the law. Don’t you claim all of the deductions and credits allowed when you complete your return?
So then why was he screeching about 47% of Americans?
You’re being hypocritical in defending him in this way. His complaint was that half the country don’t pay federal income taxes. That makes them awful leeches and yet when Romney gets his rate real low suddenly everything is perfectly fine?
BE CONSISTENT.
If trying to educate you about the use of the tax code translates into defending Romney, then so be it.
Is he violating any laws or is he simply violating your sense of righteousness?
I know you’re trying to get little jabs it, but it’s not going to work. I never said Romney violated a law. Not once. I know how income tax works and there was nothing in my comment that was erroneous.
You can save your hypocrisy for someone else as well. You defend Romney by implying that I’m being righteous, yet, Romney himself made identical comments to mine. He said some pretty terrible things about 47% of Americans simply because they don’t pay federal income taxes. So where is your criticism about that? No where, because you’re engaging in hypocrisy.
How am I being hypocritical? Where have I defended any of Romney’s comments?
Your original post said nothing about the 47% comment; you asked a question about Romney’s tax rate. I answered your question.
The initial comment was about rate reductions for the wealthy and another commenter defended Romney by saying rates are too high as they are. Romney says it’s fine he pays a lower rate than a teacher for example. He said that is great and perfectly acceptable.
You’re not asking for my vote, so I don’t care what you specifically think and I don’t care for you trying to correct me when I don’t need to be corrected. My question is why is it valid that Romney pays such a low rate (and believes he should pay an even lower rate), yet when others pay a lower rate, they are takers leeching on the government?
So yes, it is hypocritical to defend Romney as he maligns others for the exact behavior he engages in himself.
One of the points of the argument about the tax code and lobbyists is that the laws are made to protect the rich. The US Tax Code allows Rmoney to hide his money in foreign banks and not pay US taxes because the rich bought the legislators who passed those laws. That is what is meant by “gaming the system”. Many of the major corporations which make billions in profits pay virtually no tax, and in some cases receive money back from the federal gov’t, because of they were able to get laws passed which allow them to do that.
Wolfndeer was not arguing about the tax code; he was whining about Romney’s tax rate.
I understand that the tax code provides a whole lot of protections to the wealthy and I am not defending the tax code as it is written.
I disagree with your analysis of gaming the system. Those who enact laws are put into office by a majority of the citizens for whichever district they run. If they are bought and paid for than it is the voters who continue to return them to office who are to blame for our current laws.
I think most of us would agree that a major overhaul of the tax code is in order. I just don’t agree that crucifying Romney for paying only the amount of tax he owes under the current tax code is valid. Do you pay more than the least amount required? He’s not doing anything different from the rest of us, he just has more money and that seems to be the issue. He has more.
We should be crucifying Congress for allowing the loopholes, not crucifying citizens who follow the law.
You claim I’m whining and yet Romney bemoaned half the country for simply “paying only the amount of tax [they] owes under the current tax code.” Like I said, you’re not being consistent and that makes your holier than thou rantings particularly ridiculous.
Again, I’ve not defended any of Romney’s comments. I have defended his lawful use of the tax code. I would do the same for any taxpayer who properly uses the tax code. How is that holier than thou?
I look forward to you talking about how wrong Romney’s 47% comments were then.
I would not make a personal attack against Rmoney just because he follows the law, but as Wolfndeer points out below, he complains about the 47% who follow the law and consequently do not pay income tax. I have not heard Rmoney say the code should be more fair and offshore accounts should be taxed, corporations should not get tax breaks, etc.
Generally speaking, it is true those in office are elected by the public. But who picked them to begin with? In local elections it may be true that the average Joe, or Jane, decides to run for town council, etc, The ruling by the Supreme Court allowing unlimited corporate funding has changed the national, and sometimes state, elections. More likely now the candidate for a national office was backed by corporate money.
Grover Norquist is a prime example. If a Congressman refuses to sign his pledge, he will spend millions of dollars in denigrating that individual and it usually involves false ads or simply outright lies. There are several cases in recent elections where Norquist in effect chose the candidate.
You are correct – and Romney plans to cut taxes further. But Romney’s plan or Obama’s plan will only succeed if they are able to persuade Congress to support them, correct? What are the chances of that? Obama has not been terribly successful at it and I don’t believe Romney will be either. Congress is a house divided and it is time that voters stopped supporting candidates who are backed by big money.
Look at our current Senate race. There are 6 candidates; my guess is that most people cannot name more than 3. At least 2 of those 3 are supported by outside influences and yet we will send one of them to represent us.
Norquist may have chosen the candidate but the citizens had the option to elect someone else.
So, how do we go about having the Supreme court ruling overturned? That would be a reasonable first step in returning government to the people
There is a nationwide effort to get a Constitutional Amendment to overturn the Supreme Court decision. It is primarily a grassroots attempt. Most (of the current) republicans oppose this effort. Most democrats support the effort. It takes a considerable amount of time to alter the Constitution, as it should, so we may not see any effort in Congress for some time and until the democrats have a super majority in both houses. Politicians of all stripes can be persuaded to join only if the public demands it. Unfortunately with the economy still moving so slow, and other issues more pressing, it may very well be long after I am gone before it happens.
Any links to that effort (only if you have them at hand; I can google)?
I don’t think there needs to be a super majority of either party. I think we need to start electing representatives who are a more true reflection of the electorate.
My belief is that the majority of people are a bit left of center on social issues and a bit right of center on fiscal issues. I think the radical left and the radical right are extremist but are so loud that the middle is not being heard.
Just enter any of the following into your search engine;
Citizens United Repeal
Stop Citizens United
Overturn Citizens United
There are plenty of links there.
The big concern is not so much that the unions or corporations will buy a politician, but that the Chinese, Russians, El Quaeda, etc. will.
Although it is illegal for a foreign entity to make contributions to a US political campaign, if we do not know where the money is coming from how do we know it is not a foreign source?
Personally I am suspicious of someone who has made millions from doing business with China and then gets multi-million dollar donations through the new superpacs.
A current example is the Keystone XL pipeline. Why are republicans at the national level so eager to allow a foreign company to send hazardous tarsands oil through pipes made in India to a refinery for processing for export to China and Europe? In so doing they are allowed to use US eminent domain law to seize private property from American citizens, with those citizens being arrested for trespassing on their own land. To me that is very questionable.
Thanks for the suggestions. I do agree that Citizens United is bad law and needs to be overturned .
Congress is full of multi-millionaires and anyone who is investing money in the stock market is investing in foreign corporations.
Democrats are increasingly supporting Keystone. Why is that? Isn’t that just as concerning to you?
The whole lot of them are concerning to me – Republicans and Democrats alike.
Did you pay your workers a living wage all those years? If not your charity is thinly disguised self-aggrandizement. So take your money and go. I’ll stay here and spend my money supporting close to home businesses. Interesting to me that you on one hand eschew “government as the solution of problems” and on the other blame the government for not solving problems.
If you’re paying 48.5% of your earnings in income tax, you need a new accountant.
Just sayin’.
If I were you, I’d find another accoutant. About the only people I’ve heard of that pay the full tax rate are prize winners in the lottos.
I strive to come up with the money to pay my taxes and heat my home on a fixed income.
You obviously don’t understand marginal rates and taxable income. Gross income of $350,000 likely equates to taxable income of $250,000, after deductions and expenses. Only the money over $250,000 in taxable income would be taxed at a slightly higher rate (39.6% versus 35%). Let’s assume you have a banner year and have taxable income of $300,000. Your tax burden under the rates proposed by President Obama would be increased by $2,300. I repeat: $2,300.
If you are making $3,000,000 in taxable income, I am not worried about whether you can get by.
I thrived under the Clinton rates as did America. We actually balanced the budget and grew the economy.
Are you asking us to sing the “Jamaica Farewell” to you as you sail off into the sunset?
Are po’ folk and those struggling to make a living or make ends meet on a week to week, month to month basis supposed to feel sorry for you?
Sounds like you are a very fortunate son. Don’t moan about a good thing.
Geez some people just don’t get what a hard life is all about.
socialism has not worked anywhere else why are all of you thick headed liberals convinced you can make it work here
Austerity has not worked anywhere else, according to a recent IMF report on Europe. Why are you thickheaded conservatives convinced you can make it work here?
Have you looked at how countries are rated on various parameters and have you seen that Canada and Scandinavian countries are always rated above the US? Now they are not really socialist countries, but they do have many supports for their people in place that you might call socialism if the term is broadly applied. And they all seem to be weathering the global meltdown quite well. So, yes it is working.
Absolutely,
social securityfood stampsday care for kidspell grantsstart programveterans benefitsunemployment insurancelow interest business loansfema insuranceand Medicare, Medicaid and S-CHIP ( which take up about 21 per cent of the federal budget)
Get rid of them all, because Socialism doesn’t work anywhere.
Obviously we don’t spend anywhere near enough on public education.
Apparently you think Teddy Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan were socialists. Teddy backed the progressive income tax and the top marginal income tax rate for most of Reagan’s term was 50%. Socialism involves government ownership of industry.
The largest “socialist” enterprise in the USA is the US military: it is government-owned, lock, stock and barrel. When I read a right-winger bloviating about socialism in America I wonder whether he’s had his rabies test, given the level of delusion such a belief reflects.
Teddy Roosevelt also was the first to advocate universal healthcare and a minimum wage, over 100 years ago.
Predatory banking practices and lack of small business loans are what’s hindering small businesses.
Agreed.
Mr Nadeau, let’s start today by having a contest. How many fraudulent votes will be successfully prosecuted in the upcoming election? Maybe we could have a prize for the individual who guesses correctly. I’ll start; my guess is zero (0).
We finally get some letters by knowledgeable, conservative writers. As usual, the regular libs on this thread jump all over them with their spin that can’t pass a realism or logic test. It’s very obvious that a recent poll showed Maine to be the least religious state in the nation. Christian belief and logic go hand in hand, and logic is sorely lacking among the commenters at the BDN.
Us “regular libs” confront lies and misinformation with facts and references to back up those facts.
Well…… we try.
I’d love to see the syllabus for your logic course. Dogmatic religion is not logical, it’s a matter of faith. Care to subject most of your postulates to a logic test? I had and excellent logic course, care to have me judge?
There is absolutely nothing logical about any religious belief system. And, the multitude of Christian sects makes that perfectly clear.
So, what is this track you agree we should be back on, exactly?
Heisamyth.
Keep your mythology out of our governance.
Actually it is not the least religious it just that people dont want to go to church anymore because of people like you. They want to believe in the one and only true God not the angry sick one you made up.
Mr. Coleman did you ever hear about separation of church and state? Nothing is forcing you to give up your religion you are free to practice any way you want, just keep it out of government.
Thomas Coleman and Dave Neilson – Excellent, truthful, and accurate letters. They are sure to get the lefties all riled up. They can’t handle the truth, don’t you know.
Can you stop calling your opinion the truth? It’s ridiculous, incredibly arrogant, and of course, wrong.
Truth? Where? Where?
Have you ever disagreed with the statement made by someone who supports your side of the issues? We see people against the ACA and SSM make ridiculous, nonsensical, untruthful, and inflammatory statements all the time but are never called out by others on the same side.
Well, that may be because he agrees with all of those ridiculous, nonsensical, untruthful, and inflammatory statements. He will also be participating in making those ridiculous, nonsensical, untruthful, and inflammatory statements. So, I don’t think he will be calling himself out anytime soon.
Sure, I’ve disagreed with many people on the right. But not with these two letters. You see, even the lefties that are attacking these letter writers haven’t given any evidence that what they wrote is wrong. All the lefties have done is denigrate and disparage them. Why? Because they did write the truth.
Except we have. The eivdence is the “Constitution”, something that the religious right has nothing but contempt for…
Just because you ignore it, doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.
We have to prove that rule by religion is wrong?
Really?!
Wow…
Let me know how it works for you when this country becomes a Theocracy. Your daughters will not be allowed to speak or become educated. You men will be forced into the military. Theocracys are bad and have been in every case. God Bless.
It’s not truth EJP… it’s your opinion, and theirs.
Nothing more.
EJ, I am sure Jesus would never act as you do sir. Preach what Jesus preached not Jesus. God Bless.
Mr. Coleman, if you vote for the wrong Republicans you will aiding and abetting the continued destruction of the middle class.
We’re not a Christian nation, period.
….and never were.
Dave Neilson–there has been 4.5 million jobs created, I guess not everybody is frozen, believe me when I say if there is a demand for these companies goods or services they will hire regardless of anything else. Entrepreneurs are very good at making money they will find a way.Obamacare is bothering them, are you telling me that insurance rates have been very steady for years? There are unknowns in business and that has been one of them, but it will settle down after it is completely implemented.
Energy- there is more crude oil, natural gas being obtained than under any other president. There is more solar power being used all over the world than ever before and there is no stopping it, would you want the USA to sit back and let the rest of the world go speeding past us, I wouldn’t, this is an renewal energy and should be explored.
Class warfare on taxes has been done by the Republicans for years so don’t play that card. Even many of businesses and the wealthy agree they need to pay more. Taxes are the lowest in modern history and reversible Mittens want to cut taxes more so he can pay back his buddies.
The Republicans took 8 years to get us into this mess Obama has a good start in getting us out of the mess, vote OBAMA/BIDEN 2012
I don’t like any of these posts.
T. Coleman: we don’t want a theocracy.
D. Nelson: no, instead let’s not vote for R&R.
B. Steinwand: no, you don’t have the right to smoke, and 2nd hand smole is catching up with a lot of us.
Mr. Steinwand, I agree to a point. This intolerance of a legal activity has gone overboard. I don’t think we should go back to the days of smoke everywhere, but I do think smokers should be able to smoke in some places.
It’s ridiculous to prohibit people from smoking and chewing tobacco in some areas, such as sidewalks along roads and parking lots-areas that are constantly exposed to vehicle exhaust. I recently saw a small park on a busy street corner in Milford that is tobacco-free. Where does it end?
I do agree-if it’s so bad, ban it. That will never happen because, with all the money the states rake in, they need people to smoke. So we’ll continue to get these crazy-quilt nonsensical laws that attack one unpopular behavior that has potential risk while allowing and celebrating other risky behaviors.
Thomas Coleman Sr.
When religious types cease their intolerance for those not of their faith, call me back… then we can talk.
Please, Tedlick, you know you won’t carry on a mature dialogue with anyone that disagrees with you. You used to a couple of years ago, but you’ve gone off the deep end as of late. You used to be reasonable, but not any more. And, you once would have agreed to a compromise involving civil unions, but you’ve sold out to the radicals.
No EJ… I wont’ carry on useless conversations with folks who wish to harm me, my family, or other law-abiding citizens.
Over the past couple of years the likes of Tony Perkins, Camanker, Fischer, and the rest of the “Values Voter Summit” bigots have made me realize that the far right will not compromise.
There is absolutely no need for me, as a law-abiding, tax-paying citizen to compromise with such vitriol and desire to harm.
I’ve told you repeatedly already… as long as religious zealots and those with a lust to harm citizens attack civil unions as we see EVERY TIME they’re passed, I see no reason to compromise.
Nothing radical about it. Marriage is a civil contract that under the 14th amendment should be held from no law-abiding, tax-paying citizen. If that’s radical, then you’re just as radical to the right.
You’re guilty of all the things you accuse others of being guilty of.
out of place post
Mr. Coleman seems to believe that “religious tolerance” means “other people obeying my religion.”
Aye… just like most of his ilk.
David Nelson:
Obama took a Bush/GOP economy that was losing 800,000 jobs a month to 31 straight months of job growth.
That is certain.
Obama created 5.2 million jobs.
That is certain.
Obama took unemployment from a recession high of 10.2% and reduced it to 7.8%.
That is certain.
If the GOP is once again allowed to run the country – they will once again run it into the ground.
That is certain too.
Yessah
= 86’d =
The woman’s body; the woman’s choice.
Absolutely.
Mr. Coleman, America is not, nor has even been a Christian nation. Nowhere in the Constitution does it mention Christ. As far as being forced to go against religion and carry birth control it has been disproven as a falsehood. Are you saying that thousands of men and women employed by Catholic organizations cannot decide for them selves whether or not to use birth control?
If you want to live in a theocracy than move to Iran or Iraq, or Afganistan. This is a Democracy and we are all free to practice our own beliefs. God Bless you sir.