U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Maine
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 06-23-2011, 05:18 PM
 
Location: Forests of Maine
29,722 posts, read 47,483,706 times
Reputation: 17565

Advertisements

Okay I was wrong about the cigarettes.

For a while we were shopping to possibly buy an apartment building the Bangor / Orono / Old Town area, and it seemed every apartment we walked through, if the tenants were on subsidy then they were smokers.

So I had associated in my mind that welfare or food stamps here allowed you to buy tobacco.

I was incorrect. I apologize for the error.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-23-2011, 05:24 PM
 
Location: South Portland, Maine
2,356 posts, read 4,936,023 times
Reputation: 1511
Quote:
Originally Posted by forest beekeeper View Post
Okay I was wrong about the cigarettes.

For a while we were shopping to possibly buy an apartment building the Bangor / Orono / Old Town area, and it seemed every apartment we walked through, if the tenants were on subsidy then they were smokers.

So I had associated in my mind that welfare or food stamps here allowed you to buy tobacco.

I was incorrect. I apologize for the error.
It's not allowed... but it happens all the time.. Take a drive through downtown Lewiston and watch all the nonworkers walk around smoking..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-23-2011, 06:17 PM
 
Location: New England
8,155 posts, read 18,197,614 times
Reputation: 3278
Quote:
Originally Posted by mainegrl2011 View Post
What about public employers requiring drug testing as a condition of employment or random drug testing of employees? Sounds like you are saying that the welfare recipients have a "right" to receive welfare from government so no one should violate their rights by requiring a drug test(?)
I'll go one further and say people on public assistance should not be allowed to vote either. It's a conflict of interest. Of course they will vote into office what benefits them.

Ben Franklin said it pretty straight forward:
When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MainerWannabe View Post
One thing I have noticed is that we are forgetting that we just (barely) came out of the WORST recession this country has ever seen, second ONLY to the Great Depression. A whole lot of people really needed to go on welfare, and for a longer period of time. It seems to me that we are painting all welfare recipients with an immense shame brush. Not everybody is milking the system and/or just sitting at home doing dope. Not in Maine or in any other state of the union. Jobs just aren't there! Perhaps politicians really should start getting around to fix that, and stop just pandering to their bases and blaming it all on the weakest and the poorest. It's their fault. THEY put us in this situation.
For the record I thought that there were good points in this law, and a change is indeed needed. But let's put the blame where the blame lies.
Well if that is your sentiment, you should be very happy with this bill since it's limiting assistance to 5 years. If you need assistance more than 5 years, and you are not elderly or handicapped (As the bill states.) something is wrong.

My (and I'm sure other ME natives) concern is that your "big city" thinking or at least what you've been conditioned to think will move to ME and influence accordingly.

Maine traditionally is a hard scrabble place. It's a place of good people who work hard. Welfare outside of the extreme situations flies in the face of that mindset.

As for the drug testing thing...yes I can understand how it infringes on one's liberty. However, when you are on the public dole, forcing others to carry your weight, that brings along with it, certain loss of freedoms. If you don't like it, do something to get off assistance. If you are too "cracked out" to do that, well...enough said.

This cradle to grave crap needs to stop.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-23-2011, 06:57 PM
 
Location: Florida (SW)
38,422 posts, read 18,177,990 times
Reputation: 46306
Quote:
Originally Posted by JViello View Post
I'll go one further and say people on public assistance should not be allowed to vote either. It's a conflict of interest. Of course they will vote into office what benefits them.

Ben Franklin said it pretty straight forward:
When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.
If people on public assistance should be denied the Constitutional guarenteed right of voting for representation Who is next?....

of course that would mean that everyone else who benefits from government.....like businesses and corporations and private citizens....and medical providers....well really everybody....should be denied the vote!
Should people who are laid off be disenfanchised? Should the elderly be disenfranchised? Should small business men be disenfranchised? Should young families be disenfranchised...or students....or veterans etc etc etc. The only ones who have no vested interest and cannot benefit....are dead.

If people who have an interest in government are exclude....who is left?

The whole idea of democracy is that every citizen has the right and responsibilty to vote and to vote their personal interest.....if they do....it will all work out. I think that was the premise that started our revolution....Representation! Surely no-one believes that the victims, the vulnerable.... must forfit their citizenship!

Last edited by elston; 06-23-2011 at 07:10 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-23-2011, 07:04 PM
 
6,977 posts, read 6,693,614 times
Reputation: 4676
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nor'Eastah View Post
Rhode Island desperately needs a clone of him, too.

Can we get him first? We're closer!
If he gets through Massachusetts! There will be big fights brewing, that's for sure!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-23-2011, 07:32 PM
 
Location: Los Angeles, but looking for my niche in ME, or OR
326 posts, read 360,972 times
Reputation: 297
Quote:
Originally Posted by JViello View Post

Well if that is your sentiment, you should be very happy with this bill since it's limiting assistance to 5 years. If you need assistance more than 5 years, and you are not elderly or handicapped (As the bill states.) something is wrong.

My (and I'm sure other ME natives) concern is that your "big city" thinking or at least what you've been conditioned to think will move to ME and influence accordingly.

Maine traditionally is a hard scrabble place. It's a place of good people who work hard. Welfare outside of the extreme situations flies in the face of that mindset.
Dear JViello, as far as I know, this last recession affected us ALL. Big and small alike. Everybody went to the same pot! I personally did pretty well (but would certainly have done a whole lot better if not for the Recession), and I'm sure a number of people did too. But to link my reasoning with "big city" sentiment...Well, that is just mean of you!
And you need not worry... I will not live ANYWHERE where I don't feel welcomed.
Just don't have to, thank God!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-24-2011, 10:47 AM
 
Location: Log "cabin" west of Bangor
5,487 posts, read 6,424,991 times
Reputation: 9378
Quote:
Originally Posted by elston View Post
If people on public assistance should be denied the Constitutional guarenteed right of voting for representation Who is next?....

of course that would mean that everyone else who benefits from government.....like businesses and corporations and private citizens....and medical providers....well really everybody....should be denied the vote!
Should people who are laid off be disenfanchised? Should the elderly be disenfranchised? Should small business men be disenfranchised? Should young families be disenfranchised...or students....or veterans etc etc etc. The only ones who have no vested interest and cannot benefit....are dead.

If people who have an interest in government are exclude....who is left?

The whole idea of democracy is that every citizen has the right and responsibilty to vote and to vote their personal interest.....if they do....it will all work out. I think that was the premise that started our revolution....Representation! Surely no-one believes that the victims, the vulnerable.... must forfit their citizenship!
You've hit the nail on the head Elston, and this is the basis of my argument against drug testing too. To begin denying Constitutional Rights to 'this group' or 'that group' on the basis of "Well, there are some people who are doing 'something' wrong and they need to be stopped" without due process, to begin waiving the rights of innocent people on the excuse that it is necessary to catch the bad ones, renders the the Constitution (and our entire legal system) worthless to ALL of us.

The Founding Fathers put a great deal of time, effort and thought into the Constitution, our method of government and our legal system of 'innocent until proven guilty' are designed with one of the primary purposes to be that of protecting innocent people from abuse by those in power.

There is no doubt that they knew that guilty people would escape justice, but that is preferable to the innocent being punished.

It is well established that it is human nature that when there are positions of power open to govern (rule) the people, there will be persons who will gravitate to those positions of power and seek to impose their own version of 'justice', regardless of the guilt or innocence of the people being ruled (governed).

That is why our legal system, and the Rights guaranteed by the Constitution were established- to ensure that the ultimate power remains in the hands of the People being governed, to prevent any one person or group (ruling class) from acquiring sufficient power to impose their own will on the People by enabling the People to defend their freedom and remove those who would abuse them from office either by voting them out, or as a last resort, by force of arms (the 2nd Amendment is less intentioned as a means of defense against common criminals, it is primarily a means to ensure that the people remain armed and, therefore in possession of the ultimate power and means to defend themselves against abusive government).

It is up to the People, it is our duty, to protect and defend the Constitution and the Rights enumerated therein. Any attempt to corrupt, pervert or subvert the rights of [any of] the People is an attack on the Constitution and our entire system of self-government. To abdicate responsibility and permit the Rights of one group of People to be trampled is to enable the the removal of the Rights of all of the people.

People such as myself and Forest Beekeeper (and any others) who have served in the military may perhaps have a stronger sense of this duty, as we gave an oath "...to protect and defend the Constitution...from all enemies, foreign and domestic...". There was no time limit, no expiration date on this oath.

The first oath, instituted on 14 June 1775 was soon modified (20 Sept 1776) to include the words "...against all...enemies or opposers whatsoever...". Though the wording has been changed somewhat in the intervening years, it meaning and intent remains substantially the same. "...all enemies, foreign and domestic..." includes those within and without our government who would seek to reduce or deny the rights of the People.

I take this oath seriously, even more seriously *after* having served than when I first enlisted (it was, at that time, just something I had to say to get in, after a time I came to realize what it truly meant). All of us who have given this oath have given their time (years of their lives), some have given their blood, some the use of limbs and/or organs, some have given their lives in supporting and defending the Constitution. To those of us who take this oath seriously; it is anathema to see these insidious attempts to render impotent the very thing that is designed to keep us free, to protect the innocent from being abused by those who seek power for their own ends and to impose their own will on the People whether they (the People) like it or not.

It really frosts my cookies to see people, whether out of ignorance or ill intent, attempting to reduce or eliminate the Rights for which so many have given so much in the effort to preserve and maintain them, from the Declaration of Independence 'til this very day. I exercise my RIGHT to vote, and my RIGHT to Keep and Bear Arms in observance of the oath I gave so many years ago.

The system is not perfect. There are many who escape 'justice' or who take advantage of the system for their own selfish ends but that is the price we must pay to remain free. To deny Rights to people who have done nothing 'wrong', using the excuse that it is to prevent or catch others who may have done something 'wrong' is to trivialize and make worthless the sacrifice, the blood, and the lives of millions of people over more than two hundred years...and to put us on the path to Totalitarianism that so many have fought and died to prevent.

The 'Fourth of July', 'Independence Day', is rapidly approaching. In the midst of the cook-outs, the parties, parades and games, I would urge everyone to take a few moments to consider what it really means, to consider the sacrifices that so many have made (and continue to make) so that you can feel free to walk down a street without the fear that men in snazzy uniforms will stop you saying "Papers Please", or haul you off to a cell and a 'court' where you would be tried without defense and imprisoned or executed for 'crimes' that you have not committed or for 'crimes' that are 'made up' by a Ruler to maintain his own personal power and impose his own will on those he rules.

Do not succumb to the suggestion or temptation to deny Rights to one class of [innocent] People under the pretense that it is to prevent 'others' from doing something 'wrong'.

Substitute any 'ruling authority' you like for 'Nazis', and any group(s) of other citizens for those 'ruled':

When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.

When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for the Jews,
I remained silent;
I wasn't a Jew.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.

Martin Niemoller
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-24-2011, 11:16 AM
 
Location: South Portland, Maine
2,356 posts, read 4,936,023 times
Reputation: 1511
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zymer View Post
You've hit the nail on the head Elston, and this is the basis of my argument against drug testing too. To begin denying Constitutional Rights to 'this group' or 'that group' on the basis of "Well, there are some people who are doing 'something' wrong and they need to be stopped" without due process, to begin waiving the rights of innocent people on the excuse that it is necessary to catch the bad ones, renders the the Constitution (and our entire legal system) worthless to ALL of us.

The Founding Fathers put a great deal of time, effort and thought into the Constitution, our method of government and our legal system of 'innocent until proven guilty' are designed with one of the primary purposes to be that of protecting innocent people from abuse by those in power.

There is no doubt that they knew that guilty people would escape justice, but that is preferable to the innocent being punished.

It is well established that it is human nature that when there are positions of power open to govern (rule) the people, there will be persons who will gravitate to those positions of power and seek to impose their own version of 'justice', regardless of the guilt or innocence of the people being ruled (governed).

That is why our legal system, and the Rights guaranteed by the Constitution were established- to ensure that the ultimate power remains in the hands of the People being governed, to prevent any one person or group (ruling class) from acquiring sufficient power to impose their own will on the People by enabling the People to defend their freedom and remove those who would abuse them from office either by voting them out, or as a last resort, by force of arms (the 2nd Amendment is less intentioned as a means of defense against common criminals, it is primarily a means to ensure that the people remain armed and, therefore in possession of the ultimate power and means to defend themselves against abusive government).

It is up to the People, it is our duty, to protect and defend the Constitution and the Rights enumerated therein. Any attempt to corrupt, pervert or subvert the rights of [any of] the People is an attack on the Constitution and our entire system of self-government. To abdicate responsibility and permit the Rights of one group of People to be trampled is to enable the the removal of the Rights of all of the people.

People such as myself and Forest Beekeeper (and any others) who have served in the military may perhaps have a stronger sense of this duty, as we gave an oath "...to protect and defend the Constitution...from all enemies, foreign and domestic...". There was no time limit, no expiration date on this oath.

The first oath, instituted on 14 June 1775 was soon modified (20 Sept 1776) to include the words "...against all...enemies or opposers whatsoever...". Though the wording has been changed somewhat in the intervening years, it meaning and intent remains substantially the same. "...all enemies, foreign and domestic..." includes those within and without our government who would seek to reduce or deny the rights of the People.

I take this oath seriously, even more seriously *after* having served than when I first enlisted (it was, at that time, just something I had to say to get in, after a time I came to realize what it truly meant). All of us who have given this oath have given their time (years of their lives), some have given their blood, some the use of limbs and/or organs, some have given their lives in supporting and defending the Constitution. To those of us who take this oath seriously; it is anathema to see these insidious attempts to render impotent the very thing that is designed to keep us free, to protect the innocent from being abused by those who seek power for their own ends and to impose their own will on the People whether they (the People) like it or not.

It really frosts my cookies to see people, whether out of ignorance or ill intent, attempting to reduce or eliminate the Rights for which so many have given so much in the effort to preserve and maintain them, from the Declaration of Independence 'til this very day. I exercise my RIGHT to vote, and my RIGHT to Keep and Bear Arms in observance of the oath I gave so many years ago.

The system is not perfect. There are many who escape 'justice' or who take advantage of the system for their own selfish ends but that is the price we must pay to remain free. To deny Rights to people who have done nothing 'wrong', using the excuse that it is to prevent or catch others who may have done something 'wrong' is to trivialize and make worthless the sacrifice, the blood, and the lives of millions of people over more than two hundred years...and to put us on the path to Totalitarianism that so many have fought and died to prevent.

The 'Fourth of July', 'Independence Day', is rapidly approaching. In the midst of the cook-outs, the parties, parades and games, I would urge everyone to take a few moments to consider what it really means, to consider the sacrifices that so many have made (and continue to make) so that you can feel free to walk down a street without the fear that men in snazzy uniforms will stop you saying "Papers Please", or haul you off to a cell and a 'court' where you would be tried without defense and imprisoned or executed for 'crimes' that you have not committed or for 'crimes' that are 'made up' by a Ruler to maintain his own personal power and impose his own will on those he rules.

Do not succumb to the suggestion or temptation to deny Rights to one class of [innocent] People under the pretense that it is to prevent 'others' from doing something 'wrong'.

Substitute any 'ruling authority' you like for 'Nazis', and any group(s) of other citizens for those 'ruled':

When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.

When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for the Jews,
I remained silent;
I wasn't a Jew.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.

Martin Niemoller


Your talking two huge and different issues.... the constitutional RIGHT to vote being removed vs. a simple requirement to receive welfare..

One is a right the other is a privilege!! And as such should not even be in the same discussion… It should never have been brought up!

But I find it interesting how a few of you on here who are outraged over a drug screening… a drug screen many employers require… have no issue with the many requirements, restrictions, and laws placed on our right to bear arms.. a RIGHT that is guaranteed through our constitution and practiced by many if not ALL of our forefathers!!

And I would think twice before I reference our forefathers, and the history of tyrannical governments… In Nazi Germany the possession of firearms by a private citizen of the Third Reich was considered a crime against the state; the statutory penalty was death--by hanging. Or beheading. In the Soviet Union, as in Czarist Russia, the manufacture, distribution, and ownership of firearms have always been monopolies of the state, strictly controlled and supervised. Any unauthorized citizen found with guns in his home by the OGPU or the KGB is automatically suspected of subversive intentions and subject to severe penalties.

Not that this directly applies to you Zymer but I know for a fact some out there are complete hypocrites on this issue..

Last edited by flycessna; 06-24-2011 at 11:51 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-24-2011, 12:20 PM
 
Location: New England
8,155 posts, read 18,197,614 times
Reputation: 3278
Quote:
Originally Posted by elston View Post
If people on public assistance should be denied the Constitutional guarenteed right of voting for representation Who is next?....

of course that would mean that everyone else who benefits from government.....like businesses and corporations and private citizens....and medical providers....well really everybody....should be denied the vote!
Should people who are laid off be disenfanchised? Should the elderly be disenfranchised? Should small business men be disenfranchised? Should young families be disenfranchised...or students....or veterans etc etc etc. The only ones who have no vested interest and cannot benefit....are dead.

If people who have an interest in government are exclude....who is left?

The whole idea of democracy is that every citizen has the right and responsibilty to vote and to vote their personal interest.....if they do....it will all work out. I think that was the premise that started our revolution....Representation! Surely no-one believes that the victims, the vulnerable.... must forfit their citizenship!
Ah Elston, our transplanted progressive liberal. Thanks for replying.

The issue is this. A company can not vote. (And yes I'm dead against lobbying. It should be illegal.) A person here or a person there who rely's on a government contract is not the same as an entire class of people directly being cared for by the state and taxpayers. A class of people who can and DO influence policy. The state of CT (Where I am currently) recently saw this. The entire state was 10% + for the Republican governor candidate. However, the urban centers...which here in CT are basically dirt poor, clapped out ghetto with the majority on some form of state aid - actually flipped the election because they voted 95%+ democrat.

Now, you might not think having a 95%+ vote by people directly dependent on the rest of the state is a problem...but I do. They are in effect voting themselves more benefits.


Quote:
Originally Posted by MainerWannabe View Post
Dear JViello, as far as I know, this last recession affected us ALL. Big and small alike. Everybody went to the same pot! I personally did pretty well (but would certainly have done a whole lot better if not for the Recession), and I'm sure a number of people did too. But to link my reasoning with "big city" sentiment...Well, that is just mean of you!
And you need not worry... I will not live ANYWHERE where I don't feel welcomed.
Just don't have to, thank God!
I think you misunderstand me. Elston is a good example. He's a liberal, he moved to Maine, he's affecting policy. It happens all the time in Northern New England. The liberal elites move in, and think they are going to tell the "hicks" how to live. In Northern VT, many generational farms and families are being forced out through taxation because the flat landers moved in, demanded services etc and there is no room for the natives. Not pretty.

It's happening in Northern Maine. Many progressive elites are buying up vast forest land and then roping it off the locals, and in some cases closing down the snow machine trails. Same in New Hampshire.

All I'm saying is, don't move somewhere and try to change it into where you came from. You left for a reason.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zymer View Post
You've hit the nail on the head Elston, and this is the basis of my argument against drug testing too. To begin denying Constitutional Rights to 'this group' or 'that group' on the basis of "Well, there are some people who are doing 'something' wrong and they need to be stopped" without due process, to begin waiving the rights of innocent people on the excuse that it is necessary to catch the bad ones, renders the the Constitution (and our entire legal system) worthless to ALL of us.
Oh okay, so you can take away voting rights for anyone ever convicted of a crime though. Right? Hmmm...sounds a bit like you are targeting a "group".

Listen, if you give up your rights to the state - which you are doing when you commit a crime or go on state aid...guess what. You gave up your rights. As in, you no longer have them until you are out of jail or off assistance. Period. Of course we are not talking about the elderly and handicapped etc.

As for innocent until proven guilty...what do you think a drug test does? It's a process to prove innocence or guilt. No different than a DNA test in a criminal trial.

Hell, I guess we shouldn't have bail bonds in that case either since everyone is innocent until proven guilty.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-24-2011, 12:39 PM
 
Location: Los Angeles, but looking for my niche in ME, or OR
326 posts, read 360,972 times
Reputation: 297
Quote:
Originally Posted by JViello View Post
Ah Elston, our transplanted progressive liberal. Thanks for replying.



I think you misunderstand me. Elston is a good example. He's a liberal, he moved to Maine, he's affecting policy. It happens all the time in Northern New England. The liberal elites move in, and think they are going to tell the "hicks" how to live. In Northern VT, many generational farms and families are being forced out through taxation because the flat landers moved in, demanded services etc and there is no room for the natives. Not pretty.

It's happening in Northern Maine. Many progressive elites are buying up vast forest land and then roping it off the locals, and in some cases closing down the snow machine trails. Same in New Hampshire.

All I'm saying is, don't move somewhere and try to change it into where you came from. You left for a reason.
Ah JViello...Our steadfast by-right-certified-native-Mainer-by-the-way-of-Connecticut conservative. Thanks for replying.
I think I understood you loud and clear! You left NO room for any doubt my friend.
We shall not be neighbors, fear not!

Last edited by MainerWannabe; 06-24-2011 at 12:54 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2016 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Maine
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top