Comments for: Maine’s median income falls in 2011, while poverty rate increases

Posted Sept. 20, 2012, at 6:09 a.m.
Last modified Sept. 20, 2012, at 9:56 a.m.

Maine’s median household income in 2011 decreased 2.2 percent, from $47,069 in 2010 to $46,033, according to 2011 estimates from the American Community Survey.

Guidelines for posting on bangordailynews.com

The Bangor Daily News encourages comments about stories, but you must follow our terms of service.

  1. Keep it civil and stay on topic
  2. No vulgarity, racial slurs, name-calling or personal attacks.
  3. People who harass others or joke about tragedies will be blocked.
The primary rule here is pretty simple: Treat others with the same respect you'd want for yourself. Here are some guidelines (see more):

  • This ain’t Rocket Science!

    Todays headlines, Rich get Richer, Poor get Poorer!

    Political Section; —-Republicans say Rich Need Tax Breaks to Create Jobs!

     Vote a full Democrat Ticket 2012!

    Send a Message!

    We have had enough!

    And we Ain’t that stupid!

    • Anonymous

      But, you have to vote and encourage your friends and neighbores to do the same.

      • I will —-I did!

        • Anonymous

           They won’t! Although you fail to admit it, there is an army of conservatives quietly counting down the days until we get to take the country back from the Redistributor-in-Chief and his zombie worshipers! His deluded disciples will never draw the votes they did last time, simply because so many have wised up to obama’s falures. Obviously you haven’t, but enough have to guarantee it will be one & done!

          •    I am fully aware that there is an Army of Illiterate voters under the spell of the NRA , Limbaugh, Hannity, Howie Carr and Grover Babe!!!!

            One can only hope that the Average and above average intellects with critical thinking skills will get out and vote so that they can cancel them out!

            The Problem is that crazy people tend to be crazy with a vengence!

          • Anonymous

            Yup, insults! I expected nothing less from you!

            Elitism on the left is alive and well! They are legends in their own minds! No wonder you like the narcissist so much, you share the same traits.

            Glad to see you can sit around all day playing with the computer! No wonder obamanomics is working for you!

          • Anonymous

            http://www.redorbit.com/news/health/1857600/are_canadians_healthier_than_americans/

            Canadians healthier than Americans.  How could this be? 

          • Anonymous

            Forbes Magazine says the happiest countries in the world have
            nationalized healthcare and a strong redistribution and social welfare net:

            “[The happiest countries] are all borderline socialist states, with generous welfare benefits and lots of redistribution of
            wealth.”
             
            http://www.forbes.com/2011/01/19/norway-denmark-finland-business-washington-world-happiest-countries_print.html

          • pbmann

            Says someone who started with an insult and sits on the computer all day

          • It’s only an Insult if you are Crazy!

          • Anonymous

            So the problem is not just who people vote for, but who actually votes?  So-called voter suppression is good then?

          • pbmann

            I see no reference to voter suppression in Dlbrt’s post

          • Anonymous

            Ahh, the deluded left once again clinging to the erroneous idea that they MUST somehow be the more intelligent ones!

          • Not more intelligent!,

            Just not crazier than an outhouse rat!

          • Anonymous

            Check the latest polls numbers. He may have more “deluded disciples” than you think.

          • Anonymous

             When they are all you poll, sure it looks good!

    • Anonymous

      You have got to be kidding, it is under this current president that we are getting poorer.  He has no clue what he is doing.  I use to be middle class I am now getting poorer and poorer.  With his new health care bill ( that was written by the insurance industry and big pharm) my health care cost have skyrocketed.

      • Anonymous

        I will agree with what you say in your first three sentences, but only if we substitute the word “governor” for the word “president” in your first sentence.

        That guy promised to lead us into prosperity and instead he’s leading the State of Maine into poverty.

        • Anonymous

          This article fails to point out that the median income for the whole country has fallen over the last 2 years.  The problem isn’t local.

          • PaulNotBunyan

             That’s the first thing that came to mind when I read it. Some people I know here and in other states are experiencing three things at once:
            1) Income decreases
            2) Some taxes and utilities increase. Property tax increase is one example. Some water districts have increased rates to make up for revenue lost when large business customers shut down.
            3) Availability of credit has decreased. It’s not just because of the reduced income. People I know with good credit history and some home equity tell me that they are getting turned down for loans that used to be easy.

          • Anonymous

            Banks are not loaning in general anywhere near like they used to that is for sure.  High Price of Gas and Food is an issue as well.

          • Anonymous

             I spoke with a banker six weeks ago and she told me that I could not take a personal loan against a commercial property I own in order to set-up another small business I’ve been playing with. She blamed Fin-reg. Dodd-Frank. Imagine having solid equity that you can’t use. 

          • Anonymous

            The banks are not loaning because the economy crashed in 2008, due to Wall Street malfeasance and greed.  I recommend the documentary, Inside Job, which won the Oscar.

          • Anonymous

             The banks are not loaning to small business because the regulators won’t let them.

          • Anonymous

            Here is a link that contradicts you

            http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-ticker/why-banks-aren-t-lending-weak-economy-regulatory-151318720.html

            And here is some of what it says:

            Despite a slight improvement in the Fed’s most recent survey of senior loan officers, bank lending remains stunted for several reasons …  including:

            1. Underwriting standards have improved.

            2. Changes in consumer behavior. “People are paying down their debt, people are not taking on a lot of debt.”

            3. Larger companies are sitting on record amounts of cash don’t need the money. Plus, they’re not investing more because of the weak economy.

            4. Banks are reluctant to lend to “marginal borrowers” in this weak economy.

            5. Regulations rules have not been written yet. All this uncertainty means companies “hesitate to invest” and become “cautious.”

          • Anonymous

            I don’t care what your link tells you. I have been dealing with this bank for 20 years and they have never declined a loan. They didn’t decline this one. They just said that because of regulations they could not structure the loan the same way they had for me before.

            Your link is over a year old. Things change.
            I asked why and she said mouthed the words “fin-reg”.

          • Anonymous

            Fallacy of hasty generalization:  “This apple is fine, so all the rest are”

            Not to mention that anecdotal evidence is pretty low value in anonymous forums.

          • Anonymous

            Let me put what happened in my example…. in your words.

            1. Underwriting standards have improved.

            Those standards come from the regulators.

          • Welcome to Post 2008 Banking Meltdown!

            Things will never be the same because of the unregulated wanton greed that almost destroyed the world!

          • Anonymous

            Come on Cheesecake, you know the drill. Banks will only lend you money if you do not need it. I find credit unions a little more willing to play ball than commercial banks. 

          • Anonymous

             Maybe… But over the years this bank has given me loans many times for any number of ventures. Some worked some didn’t but I always paid on time and always paid off. They wanted to do the loan and would have before. They are regulated from doing it now.

          • Anonymous

            Many believe that it was a lack of regulation that got us into this financial mess in the first place. The government is fond of trying to tune carburetors with sledge hammers. They always over correct. Small business is now paying the price for all those people who bought houses they couldn’t afford. Many would argue with me on this one, but it is my belief that big business moving their manufacturing to foreign countries  has hurt small businesses as well. Most of my customers are wage earners and their pay going down instead of up does not bode well for my bottom line. How about yours?

          • Anonymous

            One persons regulation is another persons restrictions. Banks have had restrictions placed on them and maybe the loose credit of previous eras is to blame. My sense is that they are over reacting. Come on 800 fico score and I can’t secure a loan for one business venture with the assets of another? Weird.
            My customers are generally speaking big business. Local & elsewhere. I have Nasdaq listed customers among my clientele. Ohio North Carolina New Hampshire are some of their locations.

          • Anonymous

            The lack of regulation and oversight allowed Wall Street to deceive and cheat the American people in 2008, resulting in the Great Recession we are currently suffering.

          • Congress has the Power to Regulate Commerce!

            Republicans hate having their Ponzi Schemes Controlled!

        • Anonymous

          I agree with you and it is only going to get worse when we start paying a 1% surcharge(TAX)  on every bank transaction and paying income tax on the cost of our medical insurance plans paid for by our employers.  Ask you employer how much your plan cost them.  It will astound you, for some people this changes their income completely.  If you take a mother making 20,000 and she is lucky enough to have family medical her employer probably pays 15,000 for that benefit.  She now has to pay income taxes on 35,000 good bye earned income, good bye tax credits, good bye refund!

      • Anonymous

        Your health insurance costs can be directly attributed to LePage Care.

        • Anonymous

           Absolutely incorrect. I can still get better coverage in New Hampshire than in Maine for about 60% of the cost. The Democrats have made Maine among the highest premium states in the country. It took ’em 18 years to do it. But they succeeded.

          • “The Democrats have made Maine among the highest premium states in the country. It took ’em 18 years to do it. But they succeeded.”

            Let’s examine this a bit closer. Maine has high premiums because we enacted guaranteed issue. Since this prevented insurers from discriminating based on location, age or state of health, many insurers chose not to do business in Maine. Next year, the ACA’s guaranteed issue will come into effect, preventing insurers from discriminating based on age, location or state of health.

            In other words, Maine’s high insurance premiums are a prime example of why the concept that local control is better is rapidly becoming outdated in today’s world. 

          • Anonymous

             Yep… That and the community rating system.

          • Anonymous

            [The happiest countries] are all borderline socialist states, with generous welfare benefits and lots of redistribution of wealth.

            http://www.forbes.com/2011/01/19/norway-denmark-finland-business-washington-world-happiest-countries_print.html

          • Anonymous

            Most of us on these boards live in Maine. LePage pushed through legislation that was a direct cause for rates to increase in rural areas and for all seniors.

          • Anonymous

             I live in Maine and pay Insurance in Maine. I have gotten a rate increase but not so large that it was out of the ordinary. However a decade long run of 20% annual increases can be squarely laid at the feet of Augusta Democrats.

          • Anonymous

            Plenty of people have seen large premium increases.  Thanks to LePage’s “reform” of healthcare, premimum caps on the elderly and people in rural areas are gone, and they are getting gouged.  It’s pure pork for Big Insurance:

            http://www.iwatchnews.org/2011/10/06/6883/analysis-health-insurers-win-big-maine

            bangordailynews.com/2012/09/04/health/report-young-mainers-pay-less-for-health-coverage-elderly-pay-more-under-insurance-law/

            http://bangordailynews.com/2012/09/05/health/drug-companies-health-care-providers-cost-state-millions-in-mainecare-fraud/

          • Anonymous

            Maine’s high premiums are due to obesity issues, in large part, and it was our buddy LePage that just make whoopie pies the State food, feeding into the problem:

            http://www.jsonline.com/features/health/state-health-care-costs-could-fall-by-nearly-12-billion-if-residents-drop-weight-report-finds-ik6tfau-170173826.html

            As usual, you’re just spinning, without reference or argument. 

          • Anonymous

             Ok.. I suppose the 20 years of premium invoices don’t count.

          • Anonymous

            You blamed it all on the Democrats, forgetting that premiums have risen in all states over the last decade, greatly.

            http://bangordailynews.com/2012/09/18/health/more-than-half-of-maine-adults-will-be-obese-by-2030-report-projects/

            As Mainers gain more weight over the next 20 years, state health care costs related to obesity are expected to climb more than 19 percent, according to the report. That would mark the 12th-highest increase among all states.

            Nationally, medical costs from treating preventable diseases related to obesity are projected to rise by $48 billion to $66 billion per year by 2030, according to the report.

            The report wasn’t all bad news. If Maine can reduce the average body mass index of its residents by 5 percent by 2030, the state could save
            $2.8 billion in health care costs over the next 20 years, the analysis found. That would also spare more than 130,000 Mainers from developing obesity-related diseases.

          • Anonymous

            Elizabeth Mitchell Democrat was instrumental in writing the community rating law that started the upward spiral in premium in Maine.

        • Anonymous

           Is that what you are calling obozocare now? Funny how you on the left just keep passing the blame for YOUR actions!

      • Lets try this again!!!!!

        LOL

        Todays headlines say that That median income has gone down, another article says that the Whealthiest Americans whealth has gone up 13 %.

        Republicans want to give tax Cuts and deregulation to the Richest and Tax the Poorest!

        Democrats want to Tax the Richest and regulate so that we don’t have another economic meltdown!

        Take OFF the tin foil hat—–Put on your thinking cap

        • Anonymous

          Democrats want to buy votes with others people’s legally earned money.  The Dems are not interested in helping people escape poverty, they are only interested in power.  If the Dems really care, why did all those trillions of dollars to help the poor do nothing?

          • Anonymous

            Please explain why eight of the ten states that have the lowest percentage of people who pay income taxes reliably vote Republican.  Should I be tired of supporting the Republican welfare states?  Blue states send more to the federal government than they receive; red states take more from the federal government than they pay.    

          • Republicans want to buy votes with promises of Tax Cuts!

            They cut so much that 50 % of us pay No Income Taxes!

            They are going to lose this election big Time!

            They ran out of bribe Money !!!!

            They have nothing left to offer!!!!!!

            LOL

          • Anonymous

             Thats funny.

            Republicans buy votes with allowing people to keep there own money and that’s a bad thing. LOL

          • Cheapskates , They want to skate on public roads for free!

            There is nothing funny about the something for nothing crowd!

            This Entitlement Mentality is sinking the US!

            LOL = Life Of Luxury!

        • Anonymous

           So apparently in your mind all of the rich people in this country area Republican, really. I think it is YOU that needs to take off the tin foil hat. There are more wealthy Democrats in Congress that there are Republicans. Ask Harry Reid how much money he has or for that matter ask President Obama how much money he has. I don’t see either one of them jumping to the front of the line to spread their wealth around.

          This whole issue about spreading the wealth around is nothing but class warfare waged by a socialist media and the Democratic party.

          Anyone who says they are better off today than they were before Obama took office is a Democrat or a Socialist and I’m not really sure there is a difference anymore.

          • Anonymous

            Mitt Romney at a $50,000 a plate private fundraiser:

            “My job is not to worry about those people [47% of Americans]. I’ll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives.”

            http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57515033-503544/fact-checking-romneys-47-percent-comment/

          • Anonymous

            That’s not what he said nor is it what he meant and you know it. He said that 47% of the people have already made up their mind that they are going to vote of Obama again and he can’t worry about those people because regardless of what he says or does he’ll never change their mind and he is right. The mainstream media has however tried to distort that statement to mean that he doesn’t care about 47 % of the people and that is just not the case. You are apparently one of the 47%.  Have you bothered to follow the news reports that key statements in the same video were deliberately omitted when it was released to the press. Maybe you could attach those in your future posts.

            Obama and his administration has repeated lied to and mislead the  American people since taking office and the media has helped promote and validate his lies. That however will change in November.

          • pbmann

            That is nopt what he said or what he meant. 

            http://front.moveon.org/hear-everything-mitt-romney-said-in-the-just-released-full-length-secret-recordings/?rc=daily.share

            You can listen to the whole video here if you want to hear what he really said.  You’ll be disappointed in your sources.

          • What do you think Free Market Capitalism is?

            It’s been shifting the wealth to a select few for decades!!!!!!

      • Anonymous

        You have no clue what he is doing.

      • Anonymous

        That’s a pretty amazing assertion considering that the ACA hasn’t kicked in yet. Try another tack.
        The economic worries that plague us today are a result of the previous administration’s one track mind – oil, oil, oil.The losses we took under W will take longer than 4, 8, or even twenty years to recoup. You apparently want to go back into the Bush era, which is what R&R is running on. Heaven help us if they are elected because they won’t.

        • Anonymous

          Our Economy crashed because we were giving away laons to people who could not afford them.  We gave out these loans based more on social justice themes than ability to pay.  These iffy loans were bought and sold about the market based on the Governments gaurantees to those buying them that they would not lose the money.  They didn’t, we did.  The Republicans did not put Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac into place.  By the way they are still losing billions this way and we are going to have to cover that as well. 

          • Anonymous

            You are correct, but libs will never admit it. They can’t, or else their entire rationale for BIG government collapses (like it should).

          • Anonymous

            Again, it was Wall Street that tanked our economy in 2008.  I recommend the Oscar-winning documentary Inside Job, if you want to get a good blow by blow.

          • Anonymous

            “We” didn’t give out these loans, Wall Street gave out these loans, and they knew what they were doing was wrong, but they got rich off destroying our economy.  No regulation.  And then they were bailed about by both Bush and Obama.

          • Anonymous

            Congress required banks to make those loans in most cases and Feds investigated banks that refused too many loans in neighborhoods where those refusals might be racially motivated to the point where Banks made more and more exceptions for people who really should not have qualified for the loans.  You can not guarantee money to people with no security and no assurance that you will get that money back on such a large scale without a large risk.  Having the Feds Gaurantee the money caused the market to ballon since from a bank investment perspective it is a no lose scenario.  They were right too, we paid and are still paying.

          • pbmann

            Congress did not “require” banks to give out unsound loans; you will not find any evidence of congressional pressure unduly forcing banks to make bad loans.  It was greed by Wall Street and their derivatives that crashed the economy.

          • Anonymous

            Maybe you’ve never heard of the Community Reinvestment Act?

          • pbmann

            Yes, I have and no where in the entire act does it force banks to give loans to anyone. 

            It encourages loans to minority but it states specifically in the bills language that banks are to use sound financial practices when giving out loans.  It was greedy mortgage companies that gave out questionable loans and then packaged them into derivatives to sell to others to reduce their risks on loans they knew were bad.

            Do some research and stop relying on Fox News and other for your information.

          • Anonymous

            Please feel free to find one Fox Newscast on this topic if that is where you think I get my information from. 
            Are you claiming that for 20 years after this act Congressional members were not having banks investigated and penalized if they didn’t give out enough loans to those in minority communities?
            If that is not what you are claiming than are you claiming that these investigations did not result in the loosening of what were sound financial practices?
            If you really are going to live in the land of denial and claim that your social experiments are in no way responsible for these problems than you are just being unreasonable for the sake of being unreasonable.

          • Anonymous

             There are all kinds of rules that require loans to be given out. Anti–discrimination laws for one.

          • pbmann

            Anti-descrimation laws do not require that a bank gove out a loan to an unqualified applicant, just that a bank cannot not give out a loan to a qualified applicant because of bias.

            And no law requires a bank to give out a loan to someone with not enough good credit or bad credit nor does it require that they give out more money than the recipiant can afford.

            When I was looking for a house in 2007, my local bank that I do business with would only give me a loan of $100k with a downpayment but a mortgage company was willing to give me a loan for $175k without a down payment.  That is what crashed the economy, greed not the government forcing banks to load money to unqualified applicants.

      • tag

        The real damage done by Obama, which liberals are not willing to comprehend, is the effect of his massive spending and refusal to have an energy policy. High gas prices and the de-valued dollar have made the cost of living rise out of control. This disproportionately affects lower income people. Raising taxes on those making $200,000 is not going to make your groceries and heating oil cheaper.

      • Anonymous

        Arguments are wonderful things, but you seem to have forgotten yours at home.  The rich have quadrupled their wealth over the last decade even as their taxes have gone down.  Their taxes have gone down because they have enough money to not only bribe politicians but set their agendas. 

        These rich also own the corporations that you, wisely, see as a cancer on the middle class.

        However, it is LePage’s recent health insurance “reform” that has shot your premiums up and up.:

        http://www.iwatchnews.org/2011/10/06/6883/analysis-health-insurers-win-big-maine

        bangordailynews.com/2012/09/04/health/report-young-mainers-pay-less-for-health-coverage-elderly-pay-more-under-insurance-law/

        http://bangordailynews.com/2012/09/05/health/drug-companies-health-care-providers-cost-state-millions-in-mainecare-fraud/

      • Anonymous

        In 1994 the base closed in Aroostook County which started the ball rolling for the poverty level to creep up. I believe President Obama had another 14 years before being elected. So clearly your message is out to lunch. Now, President Bush had a play date with big Pharma and started the ball rolling there. President Obama does have his faults, but is being blamed for much more then his doing.  Your insurance premiums would have gone up even if the new health care law had not gone in to effect, which by the way only some of it is in effect today the rest is to come in 2014.  I’m sorry your not making sense to many here today.

    • tag

      We did that in 2008. How’s that working out?

      Apparently it is Rocket Science to people like you, if you think doing something over and over again will give you a different result. It’s actually not Rocket Science, it’s common sense.

    • Anonymous

      Good job, Dlbrt.  I appreciate your style as well as learn from your posts.

      • Anonymous

         And THAT speaks volumes!

      • Anonymous

        Yes, we learn that zealotry, condescension and intolerance are indeed alive and active on the left.

    • Tyke

      Actual facts say tax breaks for the wealthy do not, and have never, created jobs.
      They do create larger deficits though.
      http://www.thehartfordguardian.com/2012/09/19/nonpartisan-congressional-study-tax-breaks-for-rich-dont-grow-jobs/

      • No kidding!

        Tax breaks are the Republican tool to get votes! 

        Pure and simple!

        Now that they have caused record deficit’s they intend to exclude the 47 % of Americans in the poverty zone from them and just give them to the Richest 1%

        I can’t believe that these voters don’t see thru this something for nothing scam!

    • Anonymous

      Under this president, I would say many Mainers are NOT better off than they were four years ago!

      • One can only speak for himself!

        Don’t even try to include those that you have nothing in common with other than residing in the same state!

    • Anonymous

      Assuming you voted a straight Dem ticket last time, why would you want to do so again when things are just getting worse and worse.  At some point Pres. Obama and the Maine congressional (leaders ?) need to be held accountable for the horrible economy.  It’s not JUST Maine.  It’s the whole country.

      We voted for “Hope and Change” and got a Rock Star instead.  I know, it’ll be forever Bush’s fault because the last 4 years have been miserable.  The economy, foreign policy etc.  At NO point should the Obama administration ever be expected to show improvement.  That’s because as long as the economy stinks it’ll be Bush’ fault.  I mean it’s easy to tow that Dem line right?  Using that logic, should LePage and other State Repubs be ousted because the last 40 years have been dominated by Dems?  You really can’t have it both ways.  Take the blinders off.  Neither side will ever be all things to all people.  Your lack of objectivity makes it hard to take you seriously, just as someone on the repub. side spewing their unyielding praise would.

  • Anonymous

    This 49%  that Romney says, wait 6 months it will be  75% 

    • Anonymous

      Under obama, 75% would be a low estimate! The Left needs dependent serfs in order to stay in power. It’s the entire base of the party. Their worst nightmare is a self-sufficient, self-reliant entrepreneur!

      • pbmann

        The Right needs poorly educated lemmings in order to gain power and keep it.  Only a conservative would vote against their self interest time and time again.

  • Anonymous

    In remarks made yesterday, the Mitt shared his latest revelation: the middling classes have lost purchasing power during the past four years. If he’d said it’s been the case for the last thirty years or so, he would have been closer to the truth. American middle class consumers kept the illusion of prosperity going by borrowing, taking second mortgages and the like as if there was no tomorrow. There was a tomorrow, though, and it happened a few years ago. That took care of frantic consumer borrowing and such, so now we’re where we would have been long ago had lenders been as reluctant as they are now. But the Mitt is not interested in historical trends – they’re bothersome when one is trying to become the big cheese. The Mitt’s mainly interested in the Mitt – or so it seems. He’s not alone.

  • Jonathan Smith

    This is a national trend. Obama’s four years have been a huge success for millions more on permanent government dependency. That was the whole aim of 2008 – try to create more dependent people who have lost their ability to take care of themselves. Screaming about rich poor or middle does nothing here. Don’t be so simple minded as to engage in class warfare. Government has never been the answer to a problem – we need to free people so that they can succeed in life – not put them on SNAP, Obamacare, etc. Obama supporters vote for Obama because they expect him to give them something in return. America was not built by handouts but it certainly will be destroyed by handouts. I’m sorry that genuine hard work with no guaranteed outcome is so revolting to so many people today.  We are becoming a nation of lazy cowards with no spine, ingenuity, or ambition. Thank you Great Society of the Democrats. You have created a nation of sluggards too lazy to get up off their rear and go to work. Skyrocketing obesity in America is the reflection of Americans today – not meerly the fast food places some of them gravitate too.

    • pbmann

      Explain how Obama is responsible for the loss of median income of the Middle Class from 2000 to 2009, as well.  This is just a continuation of the weakening of the Middle Class by Republican Triclle Down Economics.

      • Anonymous

         Trickle up isn’t working so hot either. I never understood why folks on the left think you can build an economy with people that have no money.

        • Whealth is the Accumulation of the value of other peoples labor!

          Think about that and one day you may be able to understand that the economy needs a lot of people WITH money!

          • Anonymous

            I knew you were sympathetic to Marx after your comment yesterday. How do you feel about Lenin?

          • Anonymous

             “Whealth (sp) is the Accumulation of the value of other peoples labor!”

            And THAT friends is exactly why the Left will not get it, will never get it, and will never be anything other than an abject failure!

          • pbmann

            Show me one rich person who made all of their wealth from JUST their labor….. just one.

          • Anonymous

             None probably, but Bill Gates paid his employees and depending on their contribution made them millionaires. Not everyone that works for another deserves to be made wealthy.

        • Anonymous

          well considering we are a consumer economy the middle class has to be strong. I don’t see how people on the right can think we can build an economy when all the consumers have no money. 

          • Anonymous

            I know you have been misled by this generations economists, but in truth the consumer is always the last to the party in any business cycle. What needs to come first is some reason for growth to occur. Generally that comes in the form of some productivity gain or competitive need. You can’t bring the consumer to the party until a business has a need to hire him/her. Hiring doesn’t come first. Its last.

          • Anonymous

            LOL, what garbage. A productivity gain or competition needed? Why would there need to be gains or competition? Could it be because there are already consumers! But yeah, shrink that middle class and pretend that increased profits turn into new jobs and higher wages. 

          • Anonymous

            Please reread. “Competitive need” not competition needed.

          • Anonymous

            My comment isn’t dependent on “competitive need” vs. “competition”. Once again, nice dodge. 

          • Anonymous

            It is if you are going to address what I said otherwise your comment isn’t dependent on much at all.

          • Anonymous

            I did and you’re dodging. The difference between competition and competitive need isn’t monumental. My comment isn’t dependent on new competition vs. a need to be competitive. But whatever, I see you’ve found your way to squirm out of a response. Kudos. 

          • Anonymous

             I am not sure what you want me to respond to if you don’t understand what I said to begin with… Call it dodging if you like. Doesn’t matter to me.

          • Anonymous

            I understand that hiring comes last, but you can’t hire more people if no one is buying your product. The middle class is the most important.

          • Anonymous

             I am not saying that the middle class is not important. It is. But you cannot hire without first having a good reason to hire someone.

          • Anonymous

            Its a vicious cycle, you have no reasons to hire people if you are not making money. I don’t know how to fix it. Sorry if I implied that I though you meant middle class was not important.

          • Anonymous

            NP.

          • Demand (consumer spending) and supply (business production) are just two of the factors that must be in balance for an efficient economy.   Arguing which is more important ignores the third and in my opinion the most critical factor….capital.  For the last 250 years it has been the availability of capital that has fueled the tremendous economic growth of the western world.  Demand in itself does not cause  new products, better products, common necessities, expensive luxuries to exist; they exist because someone believes there will be demand for them if they are made available. However, that belief  alone will not result in the manufacture of a new product or service because there must also capital available to purchase a building, buy equipment, pay employees, etc ….all before a single widget has been sold. It is the availability of capital that drives new ideas, new businesses, new jobs and a strong economy.  As a nation we face for the first time in our history a decision as to the source of the capital needed to sustain our economy:   do we continue our past practice of encouraging private capital investment (lower capital gains taxes) or do we start emphasizing government investment via confiscatory taxes on the public?

          • Anonymous

            You can get all the private capital you want, if no one has any money to buy what you are making then its all for nothing. The most important thing in a consumer economy is, the consumer having money in which to spend. 

          • Anonymous

            That is the economic thinking that pervades at the moment. It is not doing so well.

          • pbmann

            So it you have the necessary capital but no buyers for your product, how do you make any money?

          • Anonymous

             We are talking about building an economy…. Credit comes first as indicated by another poster. Or as I said, business finds a competitive advantage in producing their product or there is a new tech comes along , or suddenly costs drop on key components of business like lower energy costs and people have more money. What doesn’t work is the government handing out checks to individuals. Few jobs are created that way.

          • pbmann

            One tried and true method of spurring the economy is for government to start a stimulus program of some kind, such as a big building campaign to repair and upgrade the infrastructure like China did, or the government helping out business by having businesses keep their employees and work them however many hours they needed them and the government making up the rest of the workers 40 hour paycheck to help keep people in their homes and keeping the demand on the economy like Germany did.

            Most economic downturns are not corrected by private sector pressure but instead by government stimulating the economy in some way.

          • As clearly stated in my note, capital allows the hiring of personnel before the production of a product…capital allows production without purchases.  That is what venture capital is for….once the product is made (by people paid by the venture capital) they have money.  You are correct that money allows a class of people to fulfill their ‘demand’ for a product, but you are absolutely incorrect that the lack of consumer funds stifles production…the lack of capital stifles production and prevents the creation of jobs.  In fact, consumer dollars without capital cannot generate production without accompanying capital investment because you cannot purchase what has not been made, although you can make that which is not purchased (with capital investment dollars).  This is basic economics 101; you my friend sound like the old Soviet economist trying to figure how the US government was always able to make sure there was enough toilet paper on the shelves. 

          • Anonymous

            There can be all sorts of production, but at the end someone has to buy it. Production only comes when someone at the end can buy it. Every in the end comes down to the person buying. That is why you need a healthy growing middle class

          • ‘Production only comes when someone at the end can buy it”? Absolutley wrong. Unfounately, production often occurs without a sale and when that occurs the result is overloaded warehouses and often bankruptcies.  But what you fail to understand is that the production occured without consumer purchases.  It occured because the owners of the company and/or its investors put up the capital to create the products that ultimately enmded up in the overloaded warehouses;  but they also paid their employees with the capital they invested.  Sadly for the investors (and their employees) , the risk they took with their money failed…there was no or not enough demand for them to recoup their invested capital.  Had there been sales for their product ( people were willing and able to buy it)  they would have made a return on their risked capital, instead of a loss.  In either case, the product WAS MADE with capital provided by the owner and/or investors.  

          • Anonymous

             But, but, but, what about all that ‘obama money’ they keep promising us?

          • pbmann

            What about all the increase in jobs the Republican’s have been promising with lower taxes on the “job creators”?

        • Anonymous

          Umm, it’s the right that thinks that.

          • Anonymous

             Yes, because IT’S FACT! Why would anyone hire if the demand was not there?
            Well?

          • Anonymous

            A fact is something that has really occurred or is actually the case. The usual test for a statement of fact is verifiability, that is whether it can be shown to correspond to experience via proof. Standard reference works are often used to check facts. Scientific facts are verified by repeatable experiments, mathematical facts by logical proofs.

          • Anonymous

            You mean like trickle down then! Clinton sure enjoyed it during his term!

            Okay, try this – 382,000 new jobless! Care to ignore that fact? Looks like a pretty good example of FAILURE to me!

          • pbmann

            Last month under Bush 750,000 new jobless claims.  Last I checked 382k is less than 750k.

          • Anonymous

            Now THAT is a fact!

          • Anonymous

            And giving massive tax breaks to the wealthiest Americans, who are already paying historically low taxes and can afford whatever they want, is going to generate demand how exactly?

        • Anonymous

           Here, I’ll explain it; You give the poor some of the rich’s money, and they blow through it faster that manure out of obama’s mouth! That stimulates the economy, don’t you know! Now the crack dealers and cheap wine vendors can afford more bling, stimulating the economy.

          Further, when you take money from the evil corporate owners (called investors) and give it to the lowliest of workers, that encourages the owners to hire more blood-sucking employees!

          Oh wait, that doesn’t work. Never mind!

          • Anonymous

            Wow, yes all the poor people love there crack and cheap booze. 

          • Anonymous

             Not all poor people use crack  but I am willing to bet that a majority of the crackheads are poor.

          • pbmann

            Only because the rich prefer to inhale their coke

          • Anonymous

            Yes they do. All facts are spawn from Abbyisgod, dontcha know?

        • “I never understood why folks on the left think you can build an economy with people that have no money.”
          I never understood how folks on the Right think that you can take all the Money and still have an Economy!

      • Anonymous

        A friend of mine once described “trickle down economics” as the little guy getting peed on.

    • Fast food is designed to make money from selling  junk to people in a hurry!

      A fella has to eat on the run to get to his three jobs just to make ends meet these days!

      • Anonymous

         So your twisted argument is that fast food vendors hold guns to their patron’s heads to MAKE them walk in the door!

        So spoons really did make Rosie O’Donnell fat!

    • Anonymous

      “Government has never been the answer to a problem”Right, the private sector would have eliminated slavery and enacted consumer protection standards all on their own if only government had stayed out of it.
      I also love how you proclaim “Don’t be so simple minded as to engage in class warfare.” What do you call “We are becoming a nation of lazy cowards…” I’ll bet you don’t think rich people are lazy cowards.
      “America was not built by handouts?” Homestead Act anybody?

  • Anonymous

    Meanwhile in Washington County, it seems that we are so far into the poverty bracket that we can’t even be mentioned. No change there.

    • Anonymous

       Oh come on, The government has so many folks on welfare there that according to the lefts economic philosophy your economy should be booming.

      You must have seen the figures about how much economic activity “food stamps” create.

      • Anonymous

        The government has no body on welfare. They do not force people to go on welfare. People choose to. The government didn’t create poor people. How do you get people off welfare? Give them jobs, how do you get them jobs? Train them for jobs? How do you train them? Help them out with school? Manufacturing employment has go down, but manufacturing output has gone up. Why would a business hire more people when they are producing more now with less? Business are making record profits, share holders are very happy. Why would hire and train and eat into those profits. If they can make record profits with what they have now then they will continue with what they are doing. 

        • Anonymous

           I didn’t make up what I said.
          It was the Obama administrations selling point for the stimulus.
          It was based on a study done by Mark Zandi leftist economist at Moody’s analytics that Obama depended on to make his case. They had all sorts of facts and figures about how different welfare type programs helped the economy. My point is that if any of it were true then Washington County would be overflowing with wealth.

          • Anonymous

            So is it your contention that we shouldn’t have had a stimulus? What exactly would you have recommended?

          • Anonymous

             My comments were directed at the reasoning/selling of the stimulus package.  However to your question. …. I would have target specific economic sectors that could be primed for rapid growth rather than the wide-angle money in the consumer pocket shotgun approach of the Obama administration.
            Energy is one such field and in my opinion energy costs are one of the reasons we can’t seem to get off the ground. It could probably have done with less money and debt and much quicker if regulatory hurdles weren’t so high.
            When people talk about infrastructure spending what they are really talking about is maintenance. Not new construction. When you rebuild a bridge you just built a connection to where you were before. No new connections, no new impetus to growth. When you build a new bridge where one was not before, conceivably you connect communities that weren’t connected before and new economic activity takes place.
            Those are two things I would have done different. BTW rebuilding the Bangor Federal building imo  is maintenance.

          • Anonymous

            So maintenance isn’t neccessary? How many times would the Golden Gate bridge have been needed replacing if it weren’t for maintenance? Many of our tarred over wagon trail roads still need to be totally rebuilt as proper roads with proper drainage that will prevent the destruction of frost heaves. A properly maintained anything is a lot cheaper than building a whole new connection. I would think we do need new connections and they need to be well thought out as to exactly who is connected and what will be the ups and downs.

            I agree that energy is hugely important to the future of this country and the world for that matter. All facets of energy development should be looked at and tied together. Too bad that we have the NIMBY’s comming out of the woodwork everytime a wind/solar/hydro/nuke is proposed.

          • Anonymous

             Not my point. Its just not additive to the economy in the same way a new project with new goals is. Repair a bridge and you have the same bridge. Build a new bridge and you have a new economic motor.
            I am 100% with you on the energy side.

          • Anonymous

            I agree with your assessment of maintenance vs. new infrastructure. The East/West Highway would be a good example of new infrastructure instead of say repairing lesser existing roads.  Also, I agree that high energy cost and regulatory burdens are impeding growth.  President Obama’s stimulus bill was too highly weighted in “green” energy.  Thus you have the Solyndras of the world ie. a huge waste.  Imo, green energy does nothing to reduce costs especially in the interim when lower costs are what are desperately needed.  Especially in New England and even more so here in Maine. 

            If I had my way, I’d find a suitable area in Washington County and construct a small nuclear power plant (ironically a form of green energy).  It would provide hundreds of great paying jobs that are certainly needed there and also provide cheaper power.  I’m sure the enviro’s will LOVE that idea, as blocking progress and solutions to problems in any way seems to be their only goal.

          • Anonymous

            How about letting the economy adjust on it’s own as it always has?  No such thing as too big to fail right?  Did you ever thing that messing with the economy might be the reason that things are still bad?

          • Anonymous

            I believe that letting things adjust on their own was tried and found wanting with the ‘Great Depression’.

            Could this country havc afforded several million auto and auto related workers being laid off, some permanently?

          • Anonymous

            The Great Depression may have been deep but the misery did not last as long as this has or as long as it is forcasted to last.  This is the slowest economic recovery ever and we are now printing money on the same scale the Germans were after WWI.  Is that the end you want for us?
            As for the Auto Industry we have bankruptcy rules that they have used before and will use again.  People renegotiate everything and people go back to work.  Why is it the way the system was designed to work is not acceptable just this time?

          • pbmann

            The Great Depression lasted from 1929 until the 1940’s.  It only really ended because of WWII. 

            I remember seeing pictures of long lines of people waiting for bread and cheese, tent cities in urban centers, whole communities drying up and moving away to try to find jobs and worse pictures.  It is amazing just how short conservative’s memories are.

          • Anonymous

            It is more amazing how short Liberal memories are.
            The depression was caused by government intervention in the free market system and more government intervention lengthened it more for the US than other countries.

          • Anonymous

            Even Wiki gives it 7 years from bottom to recovery even with all of the poorly thought out mucking about in the system.  Then they hit it again as we are getting ready to do this year.

            By 1936, the main economic indicators had regained the levels of the late 1920s, except for unemployment, which remained high at 11%, although this was considerably lower than the 25% unemployment rate seen in 1933. In the spring of 1937, American industrial production exceeded that of 1929 and remained level until June 1937. In June 1937, the Roosevelt administration cut spending and increased taxation in an attempt to balance the federal budget.[87] The American economy then took a sharp downturn, lasting for 13 months through most of 1938. Industrial production fell almost 30 per cent within a few months and production of durable goods fell even faster. Unemployment jumped from 14.3% in 1937 to 19.0% in 1938, rising from 5 million to more than 12 million in early 1938.[88] Manufacturing output fell by 37% from the 1937 peak and was back to 1934 levels.[89]
            Producers reduced their expenditures on durable goods, and inventories declined, but personal income was only 15% lower than it had been at the peak in 1937. As unemployment rose, consumers’ expenditures declined, leading to further cutbacks in production. By May 1938 retail sales began to increase, employment improved, and industrial production turned up after June 1938.[90] After the recovery from the Recession of 1937–1938, conservatives were able to form a bipartisan conservative coalition to stop further expansion of the New Deal and, when unemployment dropped to 2% in the early 1940s, they abolished WPA, CCC and the PWA relief programs. Social Security remained in place.

          • pbmann

            Wow, just wow!

            http://americanhistory.about.com/od/greatdepression/tp/greatdepression.htm

            You’ll notice that not one of the 5 causes of the Great Depression had anything to do with government intervention.

          • Anonymous

            No, because it IS true, multiplier effects for things like food stamps is stimulative, for every dollar spent on food stamps the economy benefits by as much as $2.50, the situation in Washington County is not a lot worse…

        • Anonymous

          Um, what in your statement gets their sorry butts up of the couch? You failed to mention that!

          Government does no and can not give motivation to those unmotivated. They can keep giving handouts to keep the people voting Dummycrat, though!

          • Anonymous

            How is it that you can generalize a whole group of people. Yes, some take advantage of the welfare system. But the majority use it as a stepping stone when times are tough. People are motivated to get work. I’m sorry do you think you live like a king on welfare? No being on welfare sucks. We are not going to get anything thing done when people just say, well everyone on welfare is just lazy. That is not the case at all. 

          • Anonymous

             It obviously doesn’t improve ones typing skills! Perhaps you are correct, government sponsored education might help! Or you could just learn it on your own!!!!

      • Anonymous

        Welfare isn’t designed to stimulate the economy. It’s a necessity in a civilized society.  So don’t lie and try to imply that the left supports social safety nets in order to create a booming economy. They maintain that food stamps programs are necessity and that a byproduct of those programs are economic benefits — much more beneficial than say a direct subsidy to a food manufacturer or an energy company. 

        What I’m noticing is that you’re constantly applying dark intentions to others. You appear to be suspicious of their motivations and then refuse to believe them if they indicate otherwise. Are you projecting? When you advocate for this and that, are your stated reasons for support different from your real reasons? 

        • Anonymous

           I am afraid you are incorrect. A large part of the stimulus bill was sold on the idea that Unemployment, food stamps and other social safety net programs would be “stimulative.”
          Of course they weren’t.
          I never said that Unemployment and food stamps weren’t necessary… I was merely poking fun at economists (and by extension Obama) who said they were stimulative. I even named the economist  if you care to look him up and challenge my facts.

          As for your other comments…. You think too much. You are going to hurt yourself.

          • Anonymous

            I’m not incorrect. Don’t imply that these things were pushed
            as pure economic stimulus. The package was huge and included tax cuts,
            investments in education and infrastructure, and extensions of the social
            safety nets (obviously in a recession there is going to be an increased need
            for them). You can’t pluck one part out of the package, then act like the argument for the stimulus referred solely to that one part. The “stimulative” argument referred to the whole package.

            And again, nice dodge. Just throw some insults in order to
            get out of directly addressing something. You accuse others of bad acts and bad intentions because, I suspect, you’re projecting, because you’re the one engaging in these behaviors.

          • Anonymous

            :) Zandi acting as surrogate for the Obama administration, did in fact call unemployment and food stamps as stimulative.

            In fact here are his comments from October 2008.

            This report is what Obama used to push his “stimulus” through Congress.

            http://www.econbrowser.com/archives/2008/10/pocketfull_of_m.html

          • Anonymous

            LOL “acting as a surrogate” — so now your ”
            the lefts economic philosophy ” is dwindling down quite a bit. From the entire left to one guy acting as a surrogate.  And from social safety nets in general to just the ones included in the stimulus package. 

            What remains is what I said initially — “They maintain that food stamps programs are necessity and that a byproduct of those programs are economic benefits”. Not your implied lie that all the economy needs is some welfare and things will be booming. 

            It’s pretty smarmy that you assign these positions to others that they don’t hold and then fault them for it. Try having an actual discussion for once instead of painting with a broad brush and telling others what they think. 

          • Anonymous

            Zandi appeared on many talking head TV shows, gave interviews, wrote articles…. all in support of The Obama Stimulus package when it was moving through Congress. That wolfie is the definition of a surrogate.

            Zandi’s opinions were echoed by a host of left wing economists/writers including Tom Friedman and Pual Krugman. Simply naming the one that came up with the data is not dwindling down anything. 

            Implied Lie… It wasn’t, read these folks. They said that very thing.

          • Anonymous

            It doesn’t matter. You’re plucking out an argument for stimulus and trying to say it’s the argument for safety nets in general. That’s a lie. The left doesn’t hold the position you’re claiming they do. 

          • Anonymous

             I didn’t say that at all. (Talk about putting words in peoples mouths)

            Your leftists economists disagree with you.

          • Anonymous

            I’m having a tough time sorting through your garbage because you keep changing what you’re talking about and you also keep trying to revise what you previously said. 

            Nobody on the left claims that welfare creates a booming economy. You tried to imply that that is a position the left collectively holds. You said according to the left’s economic philosophy, welfare should be creating a booming economy in Washington county. That’s not putting words in your mouth — you said what you said. Now you are trying to pluck logic from a specific context (increased safety nets in a recession as part of a stimulus) from a “surrogate” and claim that it applies to safety nets in general and independent of its context.

            But if I’m so off point, then tell me specifically what you meant with your comment about the left, welfare and Washington county. Explain why the surrogate’s position re: a stimulus package applies to welfare in general and the left as a whole. I’m guessing you can’t because you were just trying to get a little dig in and now you’re too proud to admit that that’s what you were doing. 

          • Anonymous

            You are funny. I’m out.

          • Anonymous

            No, I’m right and you have nothing, so that’s why you’re out. 

          • Anonymous

            wolfndeer has it right. You are conflating an acknowledged benefit of certain welfare programs to be stimulative, they in fact are, with your biased opinion that that policy is bad.

            http://www.econbrowser.com/archives/2008/10/pocketfull_of_m.html

            The multiplier effect for food stamps has been more recently calculated and as it relates to how bad an economy is performing, it is even large now than it was when presented in this 2008 article. It is currently thought to add around $2.50 for every dollar spent. If it weren’t the case the numbers indicated above would be that much worse… I took a class at the Muskie School a few years ago with Colgan, Economics and Public Policy… It was very interesting and not an easy class to do well in.

          • Anonymous

            They are only stimulative in the sense that they help keep people, lots of people, fed and able to pay their basic bills, which all goes straight back to businesses that provide services. Without the safety net there would be mass default. Or I guess all of the lazy welfare people would just go out and get those jobs that the alleged job creators are generating by producing products for their customers who they know have no disposable income.

      • Anonymous

        Take away the food stamp program. That should teach these bums a lesson! Who do these beggars think they are? Why they should just sell their homes to the highest bidder and do just like the Okies did during the dust bowl. Pack up and leave for one of them right to work states. Them states must have lots of work because they are right to work states. Must be plenty of jobs there. So you might have to live in a tent for a while, but you’ll survive.

        • Anonymous

          Most right to work states (talk about a misnomer) are the ones with the highest poverty rates.

          • Liberal Soup N Crackers

            That is misleading. The right to work states are those states that are experiencing the greatest economic growth. Many of these states started out on the bottom rungs with nothing to point to. South Carolina is an example. They leveraged their “right to work” laws and attracted a great deal of new business. The Greenville-Spartanburg area and Charleston are great examples of what conducive business climates can produce.

          • pbmann

            And yet the workers, themselves, have not really seen much of the benefits.  Business is seeing the benefits but not the workers.

          • Liberal Soup N Crackers

            On what possible basis and knowledge do you make that claim? BMW moved into the SC Piedmont and the region has experienced tremendous economic growth. SC is now poised to be the new tire manufacturing center of the US. Boeing’s move into North Charleston has already added 2,000 direct and indirect jobs in the region with more tier one and two vendors announcing relocation or expansion plans. When BMW moved in, several tier 1 auto suppliers set up operations in the region to supply the plant.
            This economic growth provides a LOT of jobs, property tax revenues and fuels the infrastructure development needed for schools, roads and local services. Let me clue you in on a bit of reality. 90% of this country are not members of unions. Until Maine comes to the realization that they NEED to be right to work, real economic development is not going to happen. It is hard enough to attract ANY business to Maine as it is. Why handicap the people of the state any further especially when the vast majority have ZERO stake in union issues?

          • pbmann

            And yet, you and other conservatives blame every economic problem on unions.

            Yes, there have been an increase in jobs in right to work states like Texas but the majority of jobs that Texas gained were minimum wage jobs, they are still the capital of minimum wage jobs.

            Boeing moved to a right to work state so that they could hire workers for less than they were paying workers that they already had workign for  them. 

            Companies move to right to work states in order to lower the wages of their employees.  Only conservatives think it is good for America to lower the wages of the Middle Class workers and to lower the safety standards of the workplace of those workers.
             

          • Liberal Soup N Crackers

            Companies that locate in right to work states substantially increase the earnings of those communities they build in. While unions are not the source of all economic woes in the private sector, they are a significant factor in driving businesses to relocate. Business regulation, energy costs and logistics are also significant drivers.
            Boeing built their plant in SC because it fit their need for a separate plant to meet a growing demand. They also added 2,000 new jobs at their existing locations in Seattle. That is ignored by the critics.

            On what basis do you claim that a majority of the jobs added in Texas are minimum wage jobs? Right to work issues do not generally involve “minimum wage” occupations.

            Since 90% of Americans are non-union, I think your objections fall flat. Middle class workers and families joyously welcomed Boeing’s expansion in South Carolina. Thousands of middle class families have prospered since BMW opened shop in the SC Piedmont. Hyundai’s plant in Montgomery, AL has brought continued prosperity. Mercedes expansion in middle Alabama has done the same. The same is happening today in Chattanooga, TN with Volkswagon. As I noted before, SC is now the tire manufacturing center of the US.

            People like yourself with your archaic, Statist mindsets are being left behind. States like Maine are being left in the lurch. A tiny minority of selfish union and political interests continue to spread falsehoods and innuendo about the success and common sense practices of right to work states and the companies, communities and people that prosper in them. Such laws are not the be all end all of unemployment and economic problems. They are however an excellent competitive edge over closed shop States like Maine in which the vast majority of workers are NON-UNION! People like YOU are F*CKING over the people of Maine.

            I suppose as long as the ignorant are willing to be f*cked over, other regions of the country will continue to reap what could have been theirs.

          • Anonymous

            Growth in what type of jobs? Minimum wage or a wage where you can actually raise a family?

          • Liberal Soup N Crackers

            The job growth is predominantly middle class. Charleston, Greenville-Spartanburg, Raleigh-Durham-RTP, Tuskaloosa, Montgomery, Chattanooga  and others have all experienced or are experiencing a growth in middle class economic expansion. It is a liberal-union myth to state that right to work produces minimum wage jobs.

    • Anonymous

       (The survey only provides one-year estimates for six counties in Maine.)Taken from the article……

  • The Republican plan: Tax cuts to the wealthy failed to stimulate the economy so we must cut taxes to the wealthy.

    • Anonymous

      Yes, I call that the “lime in the coconut” tax plan.

    • Anonymous

      obama’s plan: Stimulus one failed. Stimulus two failed. So I’ll just start printing money until the dollar is worthless or I run out of ink. Who cares if it fails, I’ll just blame Bush and the Republicans. My supporters are too stupid to know the difference! They think I’m God!

      • Anonymous

        Some argue the stimulus didn’t have as much of an impact because they were too small. Please read about the stimulus and see what it actually did. 

    • Liberal Soup N Crackers

      Give your tax cut back.

  • Anonymous

    Well LePage’s grand economic plan seems to be working wonders in this state…..NOT.

  • RJ

    As Einstein observed, insanity is doing the same thing over & over again & expecting different results. Four more years of this? Explains a lot. Obama supporters are definitely insane, which is not a bad thing, it’s better than being stupid or lazy… maybe?

    • Anonymous

      Given your statement, I wouldn’t be quoting Einstein too much if I were you…

      • RJ

                 
        Understood. Way over your head. I
        know!  How about I quote Obama (w/out
        teleprompter in chief of course,) “uh, uh, uh, uh… I, I , I, me, me, it’s all
        about me… except of course when it’s something bad then it’s always always
        someone else’s fault… “  or how about “If I can’t turn the economy around in 3 years, I’m looking at a one term proposition”.

        • Anonymous

          Neither comment shows a shred of honesty or intelligence, IMHO. As I said, I wouldn’t lay too much of a claim on Einstein, if I were you… Those are quotes, huh? Care to provide a citation? Just for sh*ts and giggles…

          • RJ

            The “uh, uh, uh, I, I , I me,
            me, me,” is, although condensed, absolutely part of any comments that this guy
            makes.  Off the cuff, he struggles to
            find the right words because he is almost incapable of telling the truth, &/or
            over his head, hence the consistent use of “uh, ah,” etc.  Classic & verifiable pathological speech.  Throw in his consistent use of the pronouns “I,
            me, my” & you have another classic example of the messianic complex.  Sorry that this is way beyond you (which
            actually tells a lot about one of Obama’s “true believers.”) If you are unable
            to acknowledge that, then you simply confirm what is known about Obama
            supporters by anyone w/an IQ above room temperature..  “If
            I can’t turn the economy around in 3 years, I’m looking at a one term
            proposition,”  Is a direct quote from
            your hero, sdemetri-bot.  Perhaps instead of
            blindly parroting the talking points & illustrating your lack of intellect,
            you should observe another adage from Abraham Lincoln as in “

            Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt.”  Just friendly
            advice since I do truly hold out hope for the goodness of the human
            spirit.  Be well!

        • Anonymous

          You shouldn’t put stuff in quotes when you just made it up.

  • Anonymous

    Okay, so obviously since the top earners saw their wealth and income increase, we should lower the taxes for them and let that wealth trickle down! We can raise taxes for the middle and working classes because the top earners will be hiring more and they’ll increase wages for their workers too! It’s a genius plan. 

    • Anonymous

      Why raise taxes for anyone.  Stop spending twice what you make seems to be a better answer to the housewife with the out of control credit card.  You can not raise taxes enough even if you raise taxes on everyone to bring in as much money as they are spending.

      • Anonymous

        No one is advocating for only tax increases to solve our budget problems. 

        • Anonymous

           No one – except the Democrats, the Liberals, the Progressives, and the Socialists, all led by obama. Everyone else knows it’s a fool’s errand.

          • Anonymous

            another stupid comment. thanks for your contribution…

          • Anonymous

            What the hell are you even talking about?
            Obama won the popular vote in 2008 by a margin 9.5 times the margin by which George W. Bush “won” BOTH of his elections COMBINED!!!

        • Anonymous

          Even so, nothing they are advocating on either side lowers the National debt over the next 10 years.  Sure they propose to lower the amount we increase it by from 10 Trillion down to 8 Trillion or some such but that will still leave us sitting close to 25 trillion in National debt.  What then?

          • Anonymous

            Both sides are pushing budgets that lower the deficit, however, the Democrats want revenue increases as part of the deal. This is something the Republican refuse to budge on, even on a 10-to-1 split between cuts and revenue increases.

          • Anonymous

            I am not being dishonest but your being gullible.  Even this draconian doomsday sequestration plan does not lower the deficit over the next 10 years.  It only lowers the increase of the deficit.  You need to do a little more reading I think.

  • Anonymous

    Only those suffering from the brain disease called liberalism would see this as anything other than the failed result of Democrat control.  No amount of definitive proof will ever penetrate their feeble minds. All they are capable of is blaming others for their own mistakes and failures.

    Contrary to one poster’s opinion, no poor person has EVER created a job so yes, you ARE that stupid!

    • Anonymous

      I like your points Abby. Most conservatives come across as angry and a bit crazy (IMHO),but you cite facts and statistics to make your case without childish name calling. It’s apparent you’ve done your homework, kudos!

      • Anonymous

         The left ignores facts and statistics. And sometimes you have to lower yourself to their level so they comprehend what you are saying.

        Besides, obama and his adoring hoards don’t want to lift anyone up, they want us all equally miserable and poor.

        • Anonymous

          Your comments, god, are stupid and hateful. And add little to constructive dialog…

          • Liberal Soup N Crackers

            Why don’t you put your little statist censor button away. If you don’t like the comments, move along.

        • Anonymous

          Do you even know what a fact is?

      • pbmann

        I have yet to see any facts in an Abby post

  • Anonymous

    So after 4 years of Obama are we better off today? 

    • Anonymous

      This is the most obstructionist congress in history.  Since Obama was elected their main goal was to make him a one-term president, so they have blocked just about everything he’s tried to do. 

      • Anonymous

        If you believe that you don’t know anything about the last 4 years, let alone history.

        • pbmann

          Show us where the Republican’s have worked with Obama to improve anything.

          • Anonymous

            This event is began the hostility between Obama and Congress. He wasn’t in office three days then this happened.

            http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2009/01/23/obama-to-gop-i-won/

          • pbmann

            Obama did win the election with an actual mandate to try to improve the economy unlike Bush who claimed a mandate but who not only did not win the popular vote but most likely lost the electoral college as well. 

          • Anonymous

             But time has proven his mistake.

          • pbmann

            Not so, the economy is better off now that it was 4 years ago thanks in part to Obama.

          • Anonymous

             It got better on its own inertia. It would be much better if we had a President that understood the economy. In the meantime we have  weak ineffective President.

          • pbmann

            Teh economy’s inertia was headed towards a deeper recession or depression whta would have been even worse if Republican’s had been in office.  Almost all economist will tell you that Obama helped to save the economy.

          • Anonymous

            How about I show you two years where he owned the whole kit and kaboodle and had the ability to do whatever he wanted?
            How about I show you his own budget which even his Democrat Senators voted against?
            The Rupublicans blocked him no more than the Democrats blocked Bush and for the same reasons.  Maybe he could have gotten more cooperation if he had attempted more work with them when he did control everything?

          • pbmann

            How about I show you the record number of filibusters by the Republicans in the Senate between 2008 and 2010?

            How about I show you the quotes from the Republican leadership saying that their No. 1 goal was making sure Obama was a one term president which like everything else they have tried will be a failure?

          • Anonymous

             Perhaps the President should not have insulted Congress?

          • pbmann

            So Republicans in Congress are a bunch of petulant spoiled babies who have to be treated special?

      • Liberal Soup N Crackers

        Considering that Harry Reid has blocked every fiscal bill sent to him by the House, you might be correct. Add to that the refusal of the Senate to pass a singe budget during the Obama administration and you could be on to something. So what is your suggestion?

        • Anonymous

          More BS. The House didn’t send serious legislation nor were any budget proposals from the gop void of ideological handouts and poison pills. Blind partisanship and uncompromising obstruction, crackers, more resembles a parliament. We are not a parliamentary system. Some intellectual honesty is in order if you can rise to the occasion.

          • Liberal Soup N Crackers

            Take your Statist crap somewhere else. NOTHING the Republican House  sends to the Senate is going to be considered by that bastard Harry Reid.

    • Anonymous

      Yes. God only knows how much of a kluster-fuchschnit we’d be in if McCain and (God forbid) Sarah Palin were in power!!

  • Anonymous

    I wonder how lewiston ranks on the list?

  • Anonymous

    I cracks me up how the dupes on the Left only talk about raising taxes. Never, NEVER do they ever talk about cutting one bloody dime from government handouts!!!!

    • Anonymous

      Only in your fringe right wing bubble is that true. 

      • Anonymous

         My ‘fringe right wing bubble’ encompasses slightly more than half the electorate!

        You, on the other hand, seem to be alone in the wilderness of obscurity, surrounded by like-minded elitists, propped up by your ideology that wishing makes it so!

        I often wonder what you will all do after your ‘beloved Leader’ is out of the picture. (be it 2013 0r 2017.) Who will care for you then? Who will carry the dream of obama’s father forward then? You continually prove you are not capable of doing it as a party without him. He is your Messiah! What will become of you when your Messiah is gone?

        • Anonymous

          You’re kind of just screeching and rambling. 

          “Never, NEVER do they ever talk about cutting one bloody dime from government handouts!!!!” That’s a lie. 

          I’ve proven I’m incapable without Obama? How and when? You know me? He’s my Messiah? When did I indicate that? Or are you such a busy body you get to make those decisions for me? 

      • Liberal Soup N Crackers

        Do you have any example of real entitlement cuts that the Democrats have promoted?

        • Anonymous

          http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/19/us/politics/obama-plan-to-cut-deficit-will-trim-spending.html?_r=0
          Either way, Republicans are refusing to compromise even a bit. Do you remember during the Republican CNN debate. All the candidates were asked if they’d accept a 10 to 1 spending cuts to revenue increases compromise and they all said no. Why is it that Democrats are faulted for not wanting to cut more and more when Republicans won’t even compromise on a 10 to 1 basis? 

          • Liberal Soup N Crackers

            I would not accept a dime in tax increases. The Federal government has no moral right to take more. Our problem is the size and scope of the Federal Government. Why in hell do you support that giant monstrosity? Let’s get them to hell out of our lives!

            Incidentally, Obama’s “deficit plan” added $5 Trillion to our national debt.

          • Anonymous

            I don’t, I never said I did. Quit forcing positions onto people that they don’t hold. You defend someone that is saying no Democrats want to cut spending and that’s simply a lie. 

            And how do you expect things to get done if one side absolutely refuses to compromise? 

          • Liberal Soup N Crackers

            They do not want to cut spending. They merely proposed smaller increases in future spending. Those are not cuts in spending.

          • Anonymous

            And how do you expect things to get done if one side absolutely refuses to compromise? 

          • Liberal Soup N Crackers

            A side that refuses to actually cut spending while demanding tax increases is not a side willing to compromise. Also, it is not reasonable to expect either side to sacrifice grounded principles in order to appease the other. Reagan compromised with Tip O’Neil on taxes and spending cuts. He agreed to modest tax rate changes in return for cuts. The cuts never happened.

            That aside, compromise is not what I am looking for. I am looking for revolution.

          • Anonymous

            That’s fine, but it’s not going to happen. All sides are pointing to another term for Obama. You may want a revolution, but most of the country doesn’t like the gridlock. 

          • Liberal Soup N Crackers

            Actually, the indicators are that this is a neck and neck race. I also realize that there are a lot of sheeple in this country. Hopefully they will not bay too much when they are led to the slaughter .

          • Anonymous

            It’s not neck and neck, not at all. 

          • Liberal Soup N Crackers

            Both Gallup and Rasmussen have been bouncing their tracking polls back and forth at essentially neck and neck.

          • Anonymous

            No, they haven’t. 

          • Liberal Soup N Crackers

            What frickn planet do you live on?

            http://www.gallup.com/poll/150743/Obama-Romney.aspx 

          • Anonymous

            It’s not neck and neck, look at all the polls. But whatever, even if Romney wins, you still can’t force your no compromise agenda on the country. It’s just not possible. So what planet are you on?

          • Liberal Soup N Crackers

            I don’t place much stock on Romney to do much more than stop the slide int the abyss. However, he can reverse the regulatory environment, and reverse the intrusions of Obama’s “executive order” history”. With Republican control of both Houses we can accomplish far more than you think. The country’s survival depends on it.

          • Anonymous

            ONE PARTY RULE, that’s the ticket…! Save the Homeland….!

          • Liberal Soup N Crackers

            We essentially have one party rule now with a complicit Senate.

          • Anonymous

            These are the people that have been stealing elections, hindering the vote, disenfranchising voters by the tens of thousands, possibly even millions with their “voter fraud” fantasies, with the intent of establishing a “permanent majority” in Congress… I don’t think the current GOP is the least bit interested in compromise. But, you know that already. 

          • Anonymous

            BS. You are misinformed. The size and scope of the federal govt is about what it was in the 60’s when compared to the size of the population. A nuance I’m not sure you will understand.

            http://www.opm.gov/feddata/HistoricalTables/TotalGovernmentSince1962.asp

            http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/apr/06/steve-moore/steve-moore-says-ratio-people-working-government-m/

            You are advocating for more recession, possibly even a depression… at any rate, you are advocating to make the subject of this article an even bigger problem and apparently don’t even know it.

          • Anonymous

             The size may be about the same. The reach however is far broader.

          • Anonymous

            In some ways, yes. In ways that would decrease the obscene amount of inequality, the govt has failed those that are getting stepped on, hence the bad economic data, which is consistent in the larger trend that has been happening since the great divergence in income and wealth distribution since 1979. 

          • Anonymous

            Government has broadened its powers into just about every facet of our lives. My biggest personal objection… The Patriot Act.

            Another thing. The divergence in incomes started much earlier in the mid-sixties. It was small but it was there. I can’t help wondering if it had something to do with the Baby-boomers reaching the age of majority. Demographics somehow?

          • Liberal Soup N Crackers

            You assume that population increases should drive an increase in the scope and size of the Federal Government. There is little to support such an idea. Beyond that, the scope or extent of the Federal Government is measured by far more than employees. The amount of regulation, the extent of government control, the areas into which the Federal government exerts it’s assumed authority and other factors are considerably more important than just employment numbers. We could outsource half the Federal government and without addressing the intrusive impact of the previously mentioned items, we would have accomplished nothing.

            Without the intrusive policies of this Statist government, we would have already been out of this recession. Businesses are hampered. Energy development has been throttled. The EPA has injected itself into areas never envisioned. The regulatory burden imposed on businesses and individuals has mushroomed over the past couple of decades. You don’t spit on the wrong piece of ground without a 100 permits and 10 impact studies. We have become a nation where the Federal government measures the calaries fed to students at local schools.

            The people of Maine should be looking to Augusta and not some nincompoop neo-communist at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

            edited to add:
            When I was a child the only reach the Federal government had in our local lives was the Post Office and the local Dept of Agriculture office. We did just fine without the bastards we have now.

          • Anonymous

            A lot of words and ideology but not a scrap, not a jot or tittle, not a whit of evidence to support your ideology or your claims. Overreach in regulation is something that can be fixed by implementing sound policy. Privatizing govt services has a long and ignoble reputation of waste, profiteering, abuse. As I said, you are misinformed. Your ideology has blinded you. Come back with your evidence. Maybe we’ll have something to discuss.

          • Liberal Soup N Crackers

            You do not have anything to discus. You are a partisan Democrat.

          • Anonymous

            No, actually, I’m un-enrolled. I avoid partisan politics. I go for what is honest, works well, is for the benefit of the greatest number of people.

          • Liberal Soup N Crackers

            As soon as you went to Politifact to attempt to refute what I stated, you gave yourself away. Time to move along.

          • Anonymous

            Don’t let the door hit you on the way out, crackers… :)

    • Anonymous

      wrong again

  • tag

    This is the same news as in almost every state in the country, except North Dakota. I have an idea, let’s put Obama back in office to see if he can get it right this time.

  • Anonymous

    As a businessman, LePage made his money by milking the poor with his junk stores. Now that he is governor, he is making more people poor so that his junk stores will have more future customers.

  • Anonymous

    The democratic cry , IT’S Bush’s fault , don’t blame the Antichrist in the white house now!

    • Anonymous

      This is not the dems or the republicians  its both.  This is what the politicians want you to think. it’s always the other parties fault..  this way they get re elected over and over again. 

  • Anonymous

    Same story over and over and it is true that’s the problem,.. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer.. They blame this on Obama.. What these finger pointers don’t see is how Obama is trying but is met with interference from the GOP on every move..  I guess this means he is a failure, because his policies and plans for our future are blocked by the GOP.. I am happy that i am reading that these Tea Party Republicans are loosing ground out there.. Oh but that must be Obama;s fault again.. The rich need to pay their fair share of taxes so we can get some money in there to stimulate our economy.. Not hoard it away on tax breaks and loopholes designed to make them richer and us poorer buy paying their share of taxes so they can get more tax breaks

    • Anonymous

       Pass the blame for your own shortcomings! The excuse platform of the DNC. obama’s entire administration is based on it!

      • Anonymous

        What do you mean by “excuse platform”? And please use specific examples.

  • Anonymous

    Obamanomics 101 .  This is what you get.  It’s going to get worse.    

    • Really, my income went up this year. Maybe you need to work harder. It isnt the governments job to make sure you are happy. 

      • Anonymous

        No, just tax it to death

  • Anonymous

    out of control spending and maine being the welfare capital got us there…both parties are to blame and working folks still foot the bill…tough to change the direction we are heading …

    • Anonymous

      yep. 
      why else would a huge group of people immigrate from atlanta to lewiston, a dying mill town with no jobs? the welfare.
      Maine really is welfare capitol u.s.a., especially if you’re “from away”
      all while native mainers have worked their entire lives paying into a system they”ll most likely never be able to use.

  • More education more money. Myself and my partner have increased our income by over 8,000.00 this year. It comes from working hard and being open to learning. How many of those considered poverty level are accepting welfare while living with a lazy non working bum? I can name at least 3. If I can name 3 there must be many more. No more statistics lets look at how we are doing. Ask not what your country can do for you. Do for your own damn self. 

    • Anonymous

      Not everyone is lazy.  Not everyone is on welfare cause they want to be.  And not everyone is a bum. 

  • Anonymous

    And yet low-life politicians from the hardest hit areas are soaking the taxpayers more than 5 times the state average, and in Northern Maine that means more than 8 times the median income.

    With the p-poor economic development history, and criminal neglect of small business, I don’t know how Media Mike can sleep at night— probably on a large stack of taxpayer money…!

    Vote Raye for Congress
    At least Kevin knows how to create paychecks, Mike only knows how to cash them..!

  • Anonymous

    “The Maine county with the largest increase in the poverty rate was Aroostook County, which had 18.7 percent of residents living below the poverty line in 2011 compared with 12.9 percent in 2010”

    I’m grateful for what we have, and sad for those who will have trouble just keeping their homes warm or food on the tables this winter.

  • Anonymous

    As long as the dems and repubs keep us divided, they can do whatever they want to, so to you people that say democrat this or republican that, smarten up, think about what is really happening.

  • Anonymous

    You really believe that bankers — and Wall Street — didn’t want to make huge amounts of money off selling mortgages?  And they did make huge amounts of money.  They did it by GAMBLING on the loans, not making the loans.   It’s called derivative trading.

    Your view is that Wall Street said, “Oh no, please don’t let us make lots of money, we don’t want to make more money off loans–and gambling on those loans.”

    • Anonymous

      Big bankers are running this country, and slowly destroying it

  • Anonymous

    Romneys comment about 49% is scary and an eye opener for everyone in America. We are in big trouble, These politicians  couldn’t decide how to fix our credit  rating.  Time to stop listening to the bedtime stories, we want solutions on how they are going to fix this mess. If this economy doesn’t turn around this  49% is going to be 70% next year,  these politicians are suppose to be working for us!  Time to stop all the greed, We need to turn this country around NOW.   I don’t care if you’re a democrate liberal or republician  , someone in office has to start caring about this country. God Bless America!

  • Anonymous

    We had better kick our addiction to cheap Chinese crap, or the wages are going to continue to fall along with Mainer’s standard of living. Not only are wages not going up, but they are actually falling. Add to this the fact that the cost of living continues to go up every year and you get a double whammy. The Germans have one of the strongest economies and best payed workers. Why? Because they buy German, AND they export more than they import. We have the most absurd trade agreements on the planet and the dim wits in Washington are making them worse as we speak. Our trade deficit is rapidly approaching the $1 trillion mark. I only see one solution and that is to demand American made goods and put our factories and our own people back to work. Back to work at a living wage. No more of this “public assistance” wages BS. It is killing our economy, our middle class, and our small businesses. If you can’t or won’t pay a living wage, then maybe you should not be in business in the first place. 

    • Anonymous

      It might be worth mentioning again that Walmart, some of the wealthiest people on the planet, pay a wage to employees that leave the employee seeking govt assistance to make ends meet. Indeed supervisors at Walmart apparently instruct their employees in which govt programs to apply for… Sounds like a nice, compassionate thing for these supervisors to do… until you realize that as a taxpayer YOU are subsidizing Walmart’s business…  Your taxes help Walmart keep paying people BELOW a living wage…

      And folks laugh at me when I tell them CORPORATIONS have captured government for their own benefit.

  • Anonymous

    I don’t think this is news to most of us. Prices keep rising but incomes keep falling.

  • Anonymous

    It is no wonder that the poor are meant to be kept invisible in this country. It causes the country to take a long hard look at itself, and what it sees ain’t pretty.

    By the looks of many of the comments below and the incredible mix of blame, misinformation, adn downright ignorance about what poverty looks and feels like, it really is not surprising the problem with inequality, and the societal problems that comes of it, is so enormous today. Not since the period before the Great Depression has our society been so unequal in terms of incomes, in wealth distribution, in opportunity. Blaming the victims for their supposed laziness… ala Romney’s 47% comment… completely muddies the waters and does little more than support that ideology and the policies that reinforce the inequality. Damn sad state of affairs.

Similar Articles