P. Caron: Fight for the elderly

It seems like we have been here before. Doesn't anyone want to fight for the elderly?

Doesn't Gov. Paul LePage have parents or any family on Medicaid?

I read how a 90-year-old woman had to choose between her medications and a place to live. She chose her medications.

It is ironic how some people help while others take away. For example, Stephen King gives away thousands of dollars so people who cannot afford to get oil delivered will be able to stay warm.

I offer my thanks to Mr. King. But Gov. LePage is making life much more difficult for the elderly, most of whom worked all their lives so that they would be able to retire without worrying.

Why should people save all their lives when LePage can take it all away?

Phyllis M. Caron, Lewiston

What do you think of this story?

Login to post comments

In order to make comments, you must create a subscription.

In order to comment on SunJournal.com, you must hold a valid subscription allowing access to this website. You must use your real name and include the town in which you live in your SunJournal.com profile. To subscribe or link your existing subscription click here.

Login or create an account here.

Our policy prohibits comments that are:

  • Defamatory, abusive, obscene, racist, or otherwise hateful
  • Excessively foul and/or vulgar
  • Inappropriately sexual
  • Baseless personal attacks or otherwise threatening
  • Contain illegal material, or material that infringes on the rights of others
  • Commercial postings attempting to sell a product/item
If you violate this policy, your comment will be removed and your account may be banned from posting comments.

Advertisement

Comments

DONALD FERLAND's picture

Why is it that the Republican

Why is it that the Republican supporters always try to turn around what others have to say? They start using comments like your foolish and wrong and must be living off the state. Why can't they just talk about issues without acting like they are the only ones with the answers. No ONE group has ALL the answers but if we would debate the issues without putting others down maybe WE could come up with some solutions.

 's picture

This is a tactic that

This is a tactic that republicans learned from FOX News. When you have indefensible arguments, attack and make slanderous statements, malign your opponents, and if they tired of your constant attacks, or don't defend themselves are you think they should, attack them on that. Republicans have NEVER been accused of playing fair, merely playing to win.

Mark Elliott's picture

You're one to talk Dan!

You're one to talk Dan!

 's picture

you guys really hate it when

you guys really hate it when your tactics are exposed, don't you?

CLAIRE GAMACHE's picture

Red herrings

A favorite right wing tactic is when you don't have the answers, change the subject or find a scapegoat to attack. For example, before Christmas a budget analysis for the State of Maine showed that we spent more this year than last. That was before the supplemental budget discussion even came up. So in order to look like our Republican friends are making the tough calls and cutting spending we are having this whole discussion over throwing grandma out of her home. In reality spending is up and any reasonable person would have expected this to be the case given the deal the feds have been giving us. But we really don't want to talk about that. We would rather stir up hatred and division. A red herring. Look here and don't look there.

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

"A favorite right wing tactic

"A favorite right wing tactic is when you don't have the answers, change the subject or find a scapegoat to attack." If you had added, "and start name calling", Claire, you'd have been quoting right out of the left wing playbook.

CLAIRE GAMACHE's picture

Living the best I can

Like you I'm looking out for myself. I live in a city and just like the federal cuts have rained down on the states the state cuts are going to have a huge impact on city property taxes. The sick and the poor and the elderly aren't going to disappear just because the governor would rather put his money elswhere while pleading poverty. They are instead going to turn the cities into third world countries with homelessness and crime and broken families rapidly increasing. The cost of health care will go up due to increased emergency room usage and as an old person that will cost me. Cuts in education will have long term negative economic repercussions. Teachers, police, ambulance drivers, government workers and health care workers losing their jobs doesn't sound like job creation to me. It sounds like property values going down because of people walking away from their mortgages and that will cost me. They say a rising tide lifts all boats. The governor's program looks like the receding tide before a tsunami to me. If we have a right to anything it is to live in a safe, healthy, thriving society. You know "The way life should be".

MARK GRAVE's picture

Yes Claire that is “The way

Yes Claire that is “The way life should be;” however, many times the way life should be does not coexist in the same plane with reality.

CLAIRE GAMACHE's picture

Where is it written

I guess I have not read the Bible that decrees that if someone says there is no money you are not allowed to question it and the commandment which proclaims that a healthy, prosperous, fair and just society is an impossibility.

MARK GRAVE's picture

Claire, You’re taking too

Claire,
You’re taking too much liberty with extrapolating my comments to apply new meaning, or perhaps you're just shooting off on a tangent.

You’re welcome to ask any questions you wish. At the end of the day there is typically not enough money to provide everything to everybody. That being said, cuts have to be made to balance the budget.

Now you can question (or demand if you wish) more money, say for healthcare as an example, but I can equally oppose raising taxes to satisfy your request.

CLAIRE GAMACHE's picture

Speaking of tangents

You may rail against raising taxes all you want but no one has even suggested raising taxes. What is being discussed is CUTTING taxes while at the same time saying there is no money for even basic life saving protections to the most vulnerable citizens of our state. True there will never be enough money for everything that everybody wants but there is such a thing as setting priorities. Why should building gas pipe lines take priority over say medicine for sick people or fuel for people who are freezing? Why would experimental planes take priority over keeping promises to the elderly who paid for a retirement program? And just because Fox news keeps repeating a million times a day that the government is broke does not make it so. Sometimes people who profit from spreading fear and discontent lie about things.

MARK GRAVE's picture

In general, tax revenues that

In general, tax revenues that are spent on programs such as roads, defense, and energy increase productivity and create economic growth. Tax revenues that are spent on programs that don’t increase productivity, such as senior care, inhibit economic growth.

That is not to say the latter is not necessary. Both are necessary. So we come full circle back to applying a finite amount of resources (i.e. money) to problems that will and will not increase economic growth. Choices must be made, and you can agree or disagree.

So does that answer your question as to why we should build gas pipelines over applying all those resources to, say medicine? In summary, it is to spur economic growth which will also grow revenue over time.

Since I don’t own a TV, I cannot comment on what Fox news says or does not say.

MARK GRAVE's picture

Notice that I did say in

Notice that I did say in general. There is room for much debate as to where the lines are drawn (i.e. the choices made).

Bob Wright's picture

I also noticed that you are a

I also noticed that you are a retired teacher Claire. Living off OPM?

Bob Wright's picture

"Oh, so not living paycheck

"Oh, so not living paycheck to paycheck and with veteran's benefits to boot."

I do not have veterans benefits. I invested my hard earned money. Investments that cannot be touched till a certain age. I no longer have the money to invest because people like you feel they are entitled to what I earn.

CLAIRE GAMACHE's picture

Personal responsibility

Oh, so not living paycheck to paycheck and with veteran's benefits to boot. What some people call personal responsibility other might call good fortune. I'm happy for you. Last I heard the problem was not a discussion of raising taxes, at least not in a direct way, but of cutting them so your home should be safe. My father always told me that people who pay taxes should be thankful that they have an income to pay income taxes with because some people don't have one. Of course, he lived through the Depression and understood that sometimes misfortune can happen to people through no fault of their own.

Bob Wright's picture

"but in the unfortunate event

"but in the unfortunate event that your paycheck should suddently disappear through illness, accident,"

At an early age I had taken that into consideration. I planned. I have a thing called personal responsibility. I will not look to other struggling taxpayers to take care of me. Personal responsibility, what a lost concept.

Bob Wright's picture

Claire, I am 52 years old and

Claire, I am 52 years old and have worked all of my life without support from the government (taxpayer). I am also a veteran who has spent a great deal of time in hostile zones. For the first time in my life, I am living from paycheck to paycheck. I am one tax increase from walking away from my home. I have no more money to give to you and your ilk. My back is one tax increase away from giving out.

CLAIRE GAMACHE's picture

Me and my ilk

I'm sorry to hear all that but in the unfortunate event that your paycheck should suddently disappear through illness, accident, or economic turbulence say, me and my ilk would hope that there would be someone who would give you a chance to get back on your feet. What would be the altenative, throwing you away?

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

A chance to get back on one's

A chance to get back on one's feet is great, but in today's America that means a lifetime of free-bees on the backs of hard working taxpaying citizens. They continue to expand the length of unemployment benefits don't they?

CLAIRE GAMACHE's picture

The common good

I would like to think that is what we all want. We just don't agree on what it is. Republicans tell us we just don't have money to take care of the poor and the elderly with no proof whatsosever that it is true. How can you believe the government is broke when they spend so frivolously on tax breaks for the rich, $2,500 for six figure salaries and $7 for me, tax breaks on yachts, planes etc., frivolous lawsuits, a bloated legislature and so on? Governor Lepage is not proposing to trim the DHHS budget, he is eliminating entire programs and even more galling those programs opposed by his tea party cronies. Sure people are struggling to make a living and paying taxes doesn't help but will that $7 a year make all that much difference? It sure will make a difference to granny when she loses her home, and to those who lose their meds, and to those who lose mental health services and to those at risk youth who lose what little support systems they have. Democrats pay taxes too and don't want them raised unnecessarily. We just want humane priorities, a little transparency, way fewer lies and budgeting that eliminates cost rather than shifts it to the cities.

MARK GRAVE's picture

Claire, Over the past three

Claire,
Over the past three decades, practically every tax increase was argued in a similar manner: Just a few dollars a year will not make that much difference. That being said, today when I take into consideration Federal, State, Local, Sales, DMV, etc…, nearly 50% of my income goes to the government. I don’t want to pay any more taxes, so I’ll fight tooth and nail over one penny.

Instead of squeezing the taxpayers for more, you should address the spending side of the balance sheet.

CLAIRE GAMACHE's picture

The spending side

If anyone thought for one minute that cutting services to the elderly would result in cutting spending overall there would be no discussion. I find it mind boggling that people still believe politicians when they talk about cutting spending. The last president who was elected to cut spending started two wars and two social programs while paying for none of them. He cut spending alright, he put it on the credit card. The current bunch is cutting spending by shifting the cost of health care to the states and leaving it up to them to figure it out while actually increasing spending at the federal level. Just last week a new plane was ordered from Boeing for $40 billion and not one word was said about deficit spending. In fact we will have to raise the debt ceiling again. Never mind that that last such plan resulted in a plane no one can fly because pilots cannot breathe in it and the one before that gave us a plane that cannot fly in the rain. The advisers for Gingrich and Romney are lobbyists who are resposible for billions in military no-bid contracts, most of them for companies outside the USA. You can say with a straight face these guys are going to cut spending! That only comes up when programs they don't like come up for funding. The rest of the time whether it is at the state or federal level they all spend. If your taxes go down it will be by a paltry amount which they will get back by shifting the costs to something else. Prisons for example or sales taxes. Aside from Ron Paul who wants to eliminate the military and probably won't be taken seriously I have never heard a politician who meant anything serious about cutting spending overall.

MARK GRAVE's picture

Claire, For the sake of

Claire,
For the sake of brevity, I will not dispute your observations about spending.

That being said, 40% of each federal dollar is borrowed, spending cuts must be deep. In my opinion, suffrage will get worse before we lower our standard of living to an affordable position.
Neither Democrats nor Republicans (accept for possibly a few freshman R’s) are prepared to reduce spending to a level necessary that results in a zero balance sheet.

So what does one do? Oppose any new tax increases. Reconciliation will eventually come – the sooner the better. The simple truth is that the current level of spending is not sustainable.

Bob Wright's picture

Jason, expand your

Jason, expand your horizons.

http://www.onlinesentinel.com/news/waterville-baby-is-areas-first-in-the...

As far as an abortion, I am against the practice. Put the child up for adoption. But I am sure this girl has already been filled in on all of the government (taxpayer) funded programs she is now entitled to.

Jason Theriault's picture

I figured you were refering to the SJ

I know there is more than Lewiston/Auburn, but when you refer to the first baby born in Central Maine on a post on the Sun Journal, and the SJ has a story about the first baby born in L/A, you gotta admit, there is a possibility for confusion.

Now, as for adoption/vs abortion - My point is that many people on here are against abortion, but are willing to cut the programs that support the kids during gestation and beyond. If you want my support for making abortion illegal, part of the equation needs to be society taking responsibility for the well being of children by making sure they are taken care of, which will mean taking care of the mothers as well.

MARK GRAVE's picture

Phyllis, The difference

Phyllis,

The difference between Stephen King and Gov. LePage is as wide as the Grand Canyon. You see, Stephen king is spending his money in a manner he sees fit (kudos to him for helping people with that money.), whereas Gov. LePage is responsible for spending other people’s money – our tax dollars. Therefore, he must be more prudent; he must limit what he spends.

Federal, State, and local governments must limit the money they take from citizens. Therefore, money government can reasonably extract is finite. Services that government provides are proportionally finite.
While we should thank Mr. King for his philanthropy, I don’t think he would sacrifice the lifestyle that he worked hard to achieve in order to donate. Compare this to us rank and file citizens that struggle from paycheck to paycheck being taxed more for the State’s philanthropy . He fortunately has enough resources to live the lifestyle he wishes and donate – good for him.

So in closing, perhaps you should consider where the money comes from before you make such a comparison in the future – Mr. King donates of his own free will as compare to at the point of gun trough taxation. That is the difference Phyllis.

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

If it's done voluntarily,

If it's done voluntarily, it's charity; if it's done through taxation, it's tyranny; if it's done at the point of a gun, grab your ankles; you're being mugged.

AL PELLETIER's picture

Where to make the cuts?

Doesn't it seam like whenever there are cuts in government spending it's the ones who need the services the most that get targeted?
There are many state agencies that could be overhauled and streamlined to reduce the deficit but Maine Care is Lepage's primary target. Maine Care could certainly use plenty of scrutiny without eliminating it altogether. I know drastic times take drastic measures but the collateral damage could be devastating. Republican lawmakers are all starting to dance to Lepage's music. Many of them will not be dancing come election time.

Mark Elliott's picture

He's not eliminating it Al,

He's not eliminating it Al, just scrutinizing it as you suggest. "Drastic times take drastic measures" but democrats are unwilling to take ANY drastic measures at all........you can't have it both ways Al.

Mark Elliott's picture

"Why should people save all

"Why should people save all their lives when LePage can take it all away?"......Phyllis, if it were your money all saved up paying your way it wouldn't be cut from the budget.

Cuts must be made. Where do you suggest we make them and are you prepared to justify your suggestions to those affected by them?

AL PELLETIER's picture

Start at the top, Mark

And fire Lepage's daughter!

Mark Elliott's picture

Funny, one of you is saying

Funny, one of you is saying her job is "at the top" and another saying she just an "assistant".....you guys should really talk before posting so you can all be on the same page........

 's picture

One thing even YOU should be

One thing even YOU should be able to agree with, the ONLY reason she got the job is because her father is governor.

Mark Elliott's picture

If she did, then you'd

If she did, then you'd complain that the only reason was because her father was Mayor of Waterville........you would find a way to complain...you always do.

 's picture

I think it's time for you to

I think it's time for you to go away, you're not making any sense at all.

Mark Elliott's picture

Why fire LePage's daughter

Why fire LePage's daughter Al? If it were a nobody in that position you wouldn't say that.

AL PELLETIER's picture

Wanna Bet!!

Wanna Bet!!

Mark Elliott's picture

How about answering the

How about answering the question: Why fire her?

AL PELLETIER's picture

As I wrote, start at the top.

Start at the top and get rid of all the unnecessary dead wood. In government you don't need a reason to fire someone. If the tax revenue is not sufficient to support someone loitering at the water cooler, send them to the private sector where if a businesses revenue is not sufficient, layoffs are the results. That's why!!

Mark Elliott's picture

Do you even know what she

Do you even know what she does for work? I bet she is working harder than you. You know Al, "layoffs" when revenue isn't sufficient is the same as "cuts" when revenue isn't sufficient.......and cuts are indeed being made so why the complaints?

AL PELLETIER's picture

busuness

Layoffs are necessary when your revenues can't pay for the help. Cuts are when you cut back on product production because nobody is buying. Generally most businesses in trouble attempt layoffs first to balance their books, Bath Iron works for example. Cut backs on providing services and products to your customers is different and a drastic step to stay afloat,(Sears and K-Mart). Maine taxpayers are those customers who have paid into the system all their lives and now the company ,(Maine), they have been devoted to for many years, chooses them to ax over layoffs.
Last year I spent quite a lot of time at the Capitol Building. When I ran my business if my employees walked around like zombies with no apparent direction they would be history in a second. I sure saw a lot of zombies in Augusta. No complaints, just the truth.

Mark Elliott's picture

Nice spin Al......I am not

Nice spin Al......I am not new to business myself. You failed to realize one MAJOR difference in your analogy, "Maine" is 100% "employee" owned and it's "CEO" owns just as fair share as you and I.......Cuts are cuts, whether you are talking about services or payroll......

AL PELLETIER's picture

Your ignorance amazes me

If I said white is white and black is black you'd disagree. Mummer then a hake! Good Night.

Mark Elliott's picture

Liberal rule #5......insult

Liberal rule #5......insult then leave.

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

Consistency in technique is

Consistency in technique is the mother of all liberals.

AL PELLETIER's picture

does it exist

Good God, I wish I had stayed in bed! Where the hell can I buy that rule book that you just dreamed up? Dah!

Mark Elliott's picture

apparently it is right on

apparently it is right on yours and Tina's nightstands......

 's picture

because nepotism in

because nepotism in government is wrong, and should not be tolerated. Not only does she get a huge salary, but free room and board at our expense.

Mark Elliott's picture

"huge salary"?? Is that where

"huge salary"?? Is that where you draw the line? Are you saying 41k is "wealthy"?

DONALD FERLAND's picture

for someone just out of

for someone just out of college it is too much....that postion should be open for all to apply for and not given out.....it is unreal that any politician should put family into positions. it seems underhanded and not responsible to the people of Maine...what is she "spying" for her dad?????

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

If you can't pull in $41

If you can't pull in $41 grand a year after 4 years of college, why bother even going?

Mark Elliott's picture

no comment about the job

no comment about the job itself....just that it is too soon after college to make 41k......I know plenty of people that made that and more right out of college.....

DONALD FERLAND's picture

my problem isnt with the

my problem isnt with the actual job...my problem is it was given to a family member which seems a bit underhanded and not transparent....if my understanding is correct it is an assistant job which should have been open for all QUALIFIED applicants to apply for and not handed to a family member.....

you may know plenty of people that make that kind of money right out of college but our teachers sure don't and they are responsible for our children...kind of lopsided don't you think

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

Are teachers foreced into

Are teachers foreced into becoming teachers? They know the pay status going in. I'd say they get pretty well paid, considering they get summers off. I know, I know, some of them work at other jobs, etc.

Mark Elliott's picture

are you saying a college

are you saying a college graduate isn't qualified to be an "assistant"?

DONALD FERLAND's picture

No Mark I am saying it is a

No Mark I am saying it is a position that should have been opened to ALL qualified individuals and that a hiring process should have been used to fill the position...then if she was the MOST qualified individual for the position there would be no question about her being "given" the job

Mark Elliott's picture

Please define for me the

Please define for me the difference between "all QUALIFIED" and "ALL qualified"........

DONALD FERLAND's picture

Mark take a page from your

Mark take a page from your own book....look it up and figure it out

Mark Elliott's picture

don't need to....I know what

don't need to....I know what it means. I want YOUR definition.

DONALD FERLAND's picture

My definition is this ALL

My definition is this ALL QUALIFIED....get it through your head that you cannot minimize other people's opinions....you seem to not have any answers because you always try to manipulate what is said because you DO NOT have your facts straight or you would be able to discuss things without putting others down....and now that i think of it....you are not worth my time or energy because Mr. Mark knows all when he really knows nothing

Mark Elliott's picture

There we go again.....liberal

There we go again.....liberal rule #5, throw out an insult then leave. You imply one thing in one post, then try to change your meaning simply by emphasizing a different word in the next. I am not the one without the answers............I am not the one putting others down!

AL PELLETIER's picture

catching on

Tina, having a war of wit with an an unarmed man is pointless. glad your catching on.

Mark Elliott's picture

case in point on liberal rule

case in point on liberal rule #5 Tina.....

Mark Elliott's picture

case in point on liberal rule

case in point on liberal rule #5 Tina.....

DONALD FERLAND's picture

Actually I didn't Leave as

Actually I didn't Leave as you imply....I had a job to do so I went to do it and then I got a night's sleep so that I could start all over again this morning. But again...no matter what anyone says you have a response but no answers. You seem to like to see yourself in print and since you seem to have a comment for everyone and everything you must not work but must be one of those "dead weights" the state is carrying.

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

While Frank Sinatra sings,

While Frank Sinatra sings, "Stormy Weather", the flies and the spiders get along together...

Mark Elliott's picture

and you think I live in a

and you think I live in a fantasy? You just made yourself a fool with this post.

 's picture

gotta luv how you keep trying

gotta luv how you keep trying to put words in my mouth, I NEVER said 41k is wealthy, and if you use that statement, it will be a lie, complete and total, not that it matters to you and yours.

Mark Elliott's picture

Remember that little lesson I

Remember that little lesson I gave you last week about that little "hookey thing" at the end of my sentence? I was merely asking you a question....continually implying that I am "putting words in your mouth" is the lie.

You may not think 41k is "wealthy" but you clearly think it is "huge". So where does "wealthy" start Dan?

 's picture

many hard working people

many hard working people would consider 41k a huge salary, especially for an inexperience graduate. There is no way she would earn that amount on her own merits.

Mark Elliott's picture

Maybe in your social circles

Maybe in your social circles Dan but I know many that were making 41k right out of college on their OWN merits. Do you know what she went to school for? Do you know how many years she went?

AL PELLETIER's picture

41K

I was a business mgr. for 20 years, ran six big retail stores and had an associates in business administration before I became the manager of Marden's in Westbrook. My stating salary was 30K. Do you think Marden's would pay her 41K fresh out of college? How much do you think Lepage was making as the GM of Marden's? Marden's is very generous with their management personal but nothing compared to our state government.

Mark Elliott's picture

1st, how long ago Al? If it

1st, how long ago Al? If it was your "starting pay" then is it safe for me to say 20 years as that is when you started running those stores? We're in 2012 now Al! 30k is chump change.....

2nd, Nobody takes a job in a retail department store to "make it big". Especially in an off price store. I am sorry you accepted a job then, that paid so little compared to today's market, but I am willing to bet they told you up front how much it paid! If the salary was so crappy, why did you take the job? .......because at the time, it probably wasn't crappy pay!

AL PELLETIER's picture

Good God, you such an idiot, Elliot

My point was that even back 18 years ago you needed some education and years of experience to get a 30K a year job, unless your Dad was the Governor.
I've thrown my cards on the table about my job history and education. What the hell did you do your entire life besides play with a keyboard. Did you ever make an honest living? C'mon there Mr. Elephant, what have you ever done in your life that makes you the expert on anything that is real? My rule #5--get a life!
My rule #6,7,8,9,10 is the same.

Mark Elliott's picture

You were comparing what you

You were comparing what you did 20 years ago for 30k to what LePages daughter does today for 41k......bad comparison Al. With your experience, you should be smarter than that. That same job that paid you 30k 20 years ago probably starts you at about 50k now.

I didn't ask for your resume'....you threw it up and unless you're interviewing me for an opportunity, I won't be giving mine up. If your interested in interviewing me for a job in a retail store, don't bother. I have my career, far above that, and am completely happy where I am.

In all honesty, whether or not Al Pelletier believes me or not doesn't matter one bit. I'll sleep just fine without your approval.

Sales 101, don't give something of value without receiving something of value.....and what you offered me, Al, isn't valuable enough to get me to tip my hand.

Ray St. Onge's picture

I wonder

Mark,
I wonder what his position would be in the Obama's were to list their daughters as senior staff members.

 's picture

It would be the same, but I

It would be the same, but I don't see President Obama doing that, he has scruples, unlike your governor.

Ray St. Onge's picture

are you sure

Dan, are you sure that the daughters have never been listed as senior staffers. Being a betting man, and considering your track record of being wrong, I would wager the one who is wrong gets permanently banned. Feeling lucky?

Mark Elliott's picture

-->

Ray St. Onge's picture

no surprise

I'm not really surprised that Dan didn't take me up on my offer considering he "thinks" he is "always right", but it looks like he believes I'm right. One would think if he was actually right, he would jump at the chance of actually getting rid of me, but instead he appears to want to keep me. Oh, well ....

Dan, just accept the offer and I'm out of here.

Ray St. Onge's picture

no surprise

I'm not really surprised that Dan didn't take me up on my offer considering he "thinks" he is "always right", but it looks like he believes I'm right. One would think if he was actually right, he would jump at the chance of actually getting rid of me, but instead he appears to want to keep me. Oh, well ....

Dan, just accept the offer and I'm out of here.

 's picture

IF I thought you would honor

IF I thought you would honor it fine, BUT I know you're not trustworthy enough, so I'll pass.

Ray St. Onge's picture

your passing because

Dan, the reason you are passing is because you know that I am RIGHT and you are WRONG (AGAIN). If you are so sure that I am right, take me up on the offer and Patti can ban the account of the person who is wrong. Let her be the judge.

Ray St. Onge's picture

word of honor

Dan, we'll have Patti ban the user who is wrong. Sounds to me, that you think I'm right and you appear to be WRONG AGAIN.

Mark Elliott's picture

LOL......oBAMa has

LOL......oBAMa has "scruples"......that's funny!

 's picture

I understand, you don't

I understand, you don't recognize scruples, and neither do you have respect, for anyone, even yourself.

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

The parrot wants to know if

The parrot wants to know if you get paid by the SJ for your erudite and articulate psychoanalysis of bloggers who disagree with you.

Mark Elliott's picture

I understand it, not sure if

I understand it, not sure if you meant "moral or ethical consideration" or a "small amount or portion"...either way, it's funny as hell.

Mark Elliott's picture

I suspect, right now, he is

I suspect, right now, he is too busy researching Ms. LePage's college education to worry about Obama's kids. He needs to come back with something.....

Ray St. Onge's picture

Completely false

Dan, First for the amount of work Lauren does $41K is not that much. Second how do you figure she is getting free room and board at your expense.

 's picture

no amount of work that she

no amount of work that she does is worth the money, plus she stays at the Blaine House, which is reserved for the governor.

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

Then what's oBAMa's mother in

Then what's oBAMa's mother in law doing in the White House?

 's picture

Marian Robinson is an UNPAID

Marian Robinson is an UNPAID caretaker for the Obama children. Now perhaps you'd complain if the kids has paid nannies, but this was what was best for the children, but,of course, since they're children of democrats, you don't think they deserve any consideration.

Ray St. Onge's picture

wrong again

Dan, I know Lauren personally and I KNOW for a FACT that she does not reside in the Blaine House. Please get your "FACTS" straight before going to the keyboard.

Dan, if she was not doing that job, someone else would have to. That job was not create for her.

 's picture

it's amazing how many of you

it's amazing how many of you live in Fantasy Land. If her job was so important, someone qualified would have it, although that's probably a fantasy given the expertise of other lepage appointees. So keep toeing the party line, and support them all, it's all a fantasy.

Ray St. Onge's picture

sorry

Dan, you are the one in FANTASY LAND. I know that if we let you pull your liberal line, you'll hang yourself.
You are now just trying to save face after I've made you look foolish AGAIN. What makes you think she is unqualified for her job?

 's picture

there is no 'face' to save, I

there is no 'face' to save, I haven't made any inaccuracies. YOU'RE the one who claims to personally 'know' ms lepage, but you've given no proof of her qualifications for the job, or any proof that she doesn't reside in the Blaine House, which is suppose to be ONLY for the governor, and not every Tom, Dick or Harry who wants to live there. It is also amazing how unimaginative you guys are, can't you come up with your own unique terms to use, of has being a mouthpiece for FOX News made you people unable to think for yourselves?

Ray St. Onge's picture

by not addressing

Dan, by not addressing the FACT that I made you look foolish again, it appears that you are accepting the FACT that I have made you look foolish before.

 's picture

only in your mind, and that

only in your mind, and that of your clan

Ray St. Onge's picture

wrong again

Dan, do I need to remind you when I mentioned the Keynesian President you went off on a tangent about the President of Kenya. Sounds pretty foolish to me.

Ray St. Onge's picture

wrong again

Dan, you must really enjoy being wrong all the time. YOU, DAN BRETON, are the one who raised the issue of her qualification. It is YOUR responsibility to make YOUR case not MINE. I will not disclose where she resides, but I can assure you it is not the Blaine House.

As for your trying to save face, you are because there is no way you can prove anything you are saying. I have made you look foolish before and I am doing it again today.

PS. as for your statement about being a mouthpiece for FOX, it COMPLETELY false. I do not watch FOX or any of the other cable news stations.

Dan, if the Blaine House is ONLY for the governor, can his wife live there? If he had children that were minor can they live there?

Mark Elliott's picture

and how do democrats look now

and how do democrats look now after having been whipped by a mere "fantasy"......wait till the 2012 elections!

Bob Wright's picture

Dan, you are an Idiot!

Dan, you are an Idiot! Instead of being part of the solution you continue to be part of the problem. Get a life, get a job, start being a productive member of society.

On another note, I just read that the first baby born in central Maine was born to a 16 year old mother and a 15 year old father. Who do think is going to paying for that baby.

Jason Theriault's picture

Hmmm

First off, how did you even come to those numbers? The story on the front page lists the mother as 28 and the husband/father at 26.

Secondly, lets just say they were a bunch of kids. Would you prefer they got an abortion? That would be the most cost effective solution.

Third - I love how personal responsibility only applies to kids. I mean, if a elder drops the ball, and doesn't save enough, that's not their fault. But a kid messes up and has a baby, then they need to learn about personal responsibility.

I'm not trying to pick on seniors here, but it seems when people talk about about where to make cuts, programs that benefit Generation X and Millennials are first to get cut and any talk about cutting programs for Baby Boomers and Greatest Generation is taboo. Yet, Generation X, Millennials, our kids and grandkids will be the ones who get to deal with this debt that we had no say in accruing.

MARK GRAVE's picture

“I'm not trying to pick on

“I'm not trying to pick on seniors here, but it seems when people talk about about where to make cuts, programs that benefit Generation X and Millennials are first to get cut and any talk about cutting programs for Baby Boomers and Greatest Generation is taboo. Yet, Generation X, Millennials, our kids and grandkids will be the ones who get to deal with this debt that we had no say in accruing.”

Answer:
A greater amount of money is spent caring for the elderly. That is, this slice of pie is larger…

Jason Theriault's picture

?

How does that address the fact that cuts to programs benefiting younger people seem to be acceptable, yet cuts to programs for the elderly are not?

Just the record, I think we need cuts to both, I just hate how it ok to say tough crap to young families whereas you do that to a senior, your being heartless.

MARK GRAVE's picture

Jason, I agree, if enacted,

Jason,

I agree, if enacted, cuts should apply to both. However, since the elderly typically use more health care resources (aka bigger piece of the pie), then I would expect more cuts in absolute dollars to be taken from the elderly.

MARK GRAVE's picture

“Secondly, lets just say they

“Secondly, lets just say they were a bunch of kids. Would you prefer they got an abortion? That would be the most cost effective solution.”

Answer:
They have to manage on their own, just like you and me. If the child is put in unsafe living conditions, then child services should remove that child for adoption.

Jason Theriault's picture

Then when does life start?

"If the child is put in unsafe living conditions" ....
That's the point - if your saying that life starts at conception, then you have to take responsibility as a society for that life, and work to protect it. You have to provide the mother with medical care and make sure she is eating right. Otherwise, it's no different that letting a kid live in a dumpster. Also, giving birth doesn't cost $75 anymore. I read that the average costs of birth are $8,000, but like with my kids, any complications it goes through the roof(I think both of my kids were around $20K because of the c-section)

So it's far more complicated that just "Take the kids away" solution.

MARK GRAVE's picture

Jason, Before I response, let

Jason,

Before I response, let me say that you are now extending the discussion to prenatal care, where the original thread addressed providing for postnatal care.

Now, there is really nothing that states society must take responsibility. for pernatal care. For the sake of this discussion, let’s assume society ensures, to the best of its ability, the welfare of the child. I’ll layout one framework that attempts to hold individuals reponsible for the cost of prenatal care:

1. Debt – debt is incurred on behalf of the parents for prenatal and birthing costs. If the mother fails to name the father, then she bares the entire debt. The named father may challenge fathering the child through DNA testing. If the test affirms the named individual is the father, the cost of the DNA test is added to their debt. If the test result is negative, the cost of the DNA test is added to the mother’s debt.
2. Carrying the Debt – debt carrier may charge interest on the debt. The state offsets the cost of carrying this debt by offering tax credits for debt that is delinquent for X number of years. The offset could be 2-3x the debt amount.
3. Debt collecting – the state will assist in collecting unpaid debt through tax collection. Delinquent debt is paid out of any tax return if the individual’s income is under the poverty level. If an individual’s income is above the poverty level and they have delinquent debt, addition tax liability must be remitted to the state that is proportional to the amount of income above the poverty level along with collecting any tax refund the individual may be owed.
4. Forced Remittance – If an individual is capable of working, but fails to work, the state can force, through court order, an individual into community service for duration equal to the debt divided by the minimum wage.

Instead of forcing all expenses onto the taxpayer, the framework that I provided above attempts to hold the individual responsible for the cost they impose on society. While the taxpayer is still responsible for unpaid debt, there is a framework in place that attempts holds the individual responsible.
Ostensibly there is much detail that I left out, just consider my proposal a 100K foot overview.

Jason Theriault's picture

or...

They can get an abortion.

The original argument was who was going to pay for the 16 years olds to have their babies. I argued "would you rather them get an abortion". So this was a financial discussion, and the bills for getting pregnant don't start once the kid comes out. So any discussion about the finances of this begin from conception.

Now, if you best case scenario is have the kid go full term in a mother who is taking care of her self and then gives the child up for adoption, then you need to make that as attractive as possible. Because alot of people, when looking at a $20K or more(if something goes wrong, bills shoot up) hospital bill, will choose the less than $500 abortion as a solution to an unwanted pregnancy.

You can outlaw abortion, but since miscarriages make it that you will most likely have a hell of a time proving anyone did anything on purpose, you can't stop people from aborting their pregnancies. If you are serious about stopping abortions and not just making feel good points, you need to be more involved. Society needs to make sure that the baby's home( the womb) is as safe and healthy as they would require from the parents abode post birth.

MARK GRAVE's picture

Jason, Let’s face it.

Jason,
Let’s face it. Abortion is legal in the U.S., so that remains an option. That being said, any individual or group of individuals may offer financial incentives for the mother to carry to term.

That, in my opinion, is not the State’s business. The State is only obligated to obey existing law. My opinion aside, a State has the power to offer financial aid to discourage abortion if it so chooses since it is a power granted to the State; however, the State cannot outlaw abortion – at least until Roe vs. Wade is overturned.

In closing, a State has the power to offer financial aid to discourage abortions albeit counter to reducing expenses. It is the people's choice to where they want to spend their limited resources.

Jason Theriault's picture

Make it the states business.

I think, that if your going to take up the mantle of protecting unborn children, you can't just draw the line at abortions. You have to make sure that the mother has access to care and other benefits free of charge.

And this is the state's business. If life begins at conception, then the state would have already have legislation on the books to protect them:

Title 22, Chapter 1071: CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES AND CHILD PROTECTION AC
22 §4003. PURPOSES

"Recognizing that the health and safety of children must be of paramount concern and that the right to
family integrity is limited by the right of children to be protected from abuse and neglect and recognizing also that uncertainty and instability are possible in extended foster home or institutional living, it is the intent of the Legislature that this chapter:
Authorization. Authorize the department to protect and assist abused and neglected children,
children in circumstances which present a substantial risk of abuse and neglect, and their families"

And the definition of abuse:

"
22 §4002. DEFINITIONS
As used in this chapter, unless the context indicates otherwise, the following terms have the following
meanings. [1979, c. 733, §18 (NEW).]
1. Abuse or neglect. "Abuse or neglect" means a threat to a child's health or welfare by physical,
mental or emotional injury or impairment, sexual abuse or exploitation, deprivation of essential needs or lackof protection from these or failure to ensure compliance with school attendance requirements under Title
20-A, section 3272, subsection 2, paragraph B or section 5051-A, subsection 1, paragraph C, by a person
responsible for the child"

So The state has already authorized DHHS to do such things(and hence why they do them).

MARK GRAVE's picture

Perhaps you are confused on

Perhaps you are confused on my position:

1. I am not picking up the mantle for protecting unborn children – I support choice.
2. Therefore, there are no lines to be drawn.
3. Mother’s should be charged for services, but allowed to pay in installments plans if necessary.

That is my position or opinion regardless of current law.
This discussion has gotten off the original topic, so this is my last response.

MARK GRAVE's picture

Addendum:

5. If an individual leaves the state to avoid remitting on their debt, they are ineligible for most if not all state programs, including issuance of a driver’s license, for life. If an individual wishes to return to the state, they may do so, but they are responsible for paying all delinquent debt plus unpaid interest plus a responsible fine to cover administration costs. The goals of this prevision are to: A. Provide a path for forgiveness. B. Encourage dead beats to reside in another state.

MICHAEL LEBLANC's picture

Your first observation is re-proven ...

... every time Breton posts.

Significant money will go to those child parents and their spawn (Happy New Year!) instead of the elderly unless cuts (no pun intended) are made to keep those who don't deserve help off the welfare rolls.

 's picture

Ms Caron, that's republican

Ms Caron, that's republican strategy, let the old and sickly die off so they cannot vote, so republicans keep giving to their cronies. Just like the millionaire tax cuts given by this legislature, and yet they want to kill the old and infirm. Nice party, huh?

MARK GRAVE's picture

Dan, You again make the

Dan,
You again make the faulty assumption that all Republicans rolling in cash that they dish out “to their cronies.” Not true! There are poor republicans too.

You again make the faulty assumption that all the revenue problems can be solved by taxing the rich without realizing you cannot extract enough revenue from the rich to balance the budget.

Mark Gravel – Libertarian.

RONALD RIML's picture

And it's also

And it's also up to we 'Retired's

To kick in for our children and grandchildren when Insurance and Maine-Care drops the ball, along with cheap employers.

But I reckon no-one is getting out of here alive.

MARK GRAVE's picture

Ronald, I somewhat agree with

Ronald,

I somewhat agree with you, but I would word your statement as follows:

To kick in for our children and grandchildren when Insurance and Maine-Care runs out of resources.

The later identifies the existence of limited government resources – a real-world phenomenon.

Mark

Advertisement

Stay informed — Get the news delivered for free in your inbox.

I'm interested in ...