This is the kind of crap that just drives me nuts.

There should be NO provisions for adding pork to ANY bill. All this is is payback for contributions or favors to someone in the politicians district.

The politicians who added the pork should go to jail for screwing the taxpayers. (or at least be beaten about the head and shoulders with a baseball bat)

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/02/bailout.pork/index.html

Oink! Oink!

I heard mention of the arrow shaft provision on a conversation on one of the HAM radio repeaters earlier tonight. On the one hand, it is offensive and unfair that people who know how to work the system well enough have the power to get legislators to write in specific provisions into bills for them. On the other hand, if there were no pork at all, then legislators would be criticized for not representing and defending the interests of their constituents. They are damned if they do, and they are damned if they don't.

No pork, no bill.

And that sucks.

Why don't they just call it what it really is; Graft.

And there was Palin, with her manicured hand sticking out just as far as the rest of 'em.

....No pork, no bill.....

No bill then.

....No pork, no bill.....

No bill then.

100% Agreed.

No bill and you'll all be hurting more than you can comprehend. Get over it.

Well it passed and all that needs to happen is the Prez to sign...interesting fallout to come, most of the Congressmen did'nt like it but signed into law anyways...need to have a pork report of the bill...this should have been just a mortgage bailout...what gives!?

Looking at the big picture, the comment really should read "No pork, no bills."

This pork issue brought to mind the elusive "line-item veto" power that Presidents had once tried to attain. This was explained to me (and a classroom full of high school students) during the 1992 election as follows:

"Line-item veto means that the President can sign just part of a bill into law. This is meant to eliminate the pork barrel provisions that are often found in bills. You hear this term being used in this election as a campaign promise--'If elected, I will try to get the line-item veto...' However, this is not likely to happen. Presidents have been trying to get the right to line-item vetoes for a long time and none have been successful."

>>none have been successful

sad account of our current government rules...need line item veto badly...would work for both Dems and Republicans for the people.

This was all magnified, of course , because this crisis happened in an election year and only A MONTH away from the damned election ! The amount pork added to this bill, relatively speaking was minimal compared to other bills.

House Representatives always reacts with volatility to legislation. It is intrinsic in that body due to the number of Reps and the smaller geographinc districts they represent and to a much smaller population base than U.S.Senators answer to. It was ' cover your ass 101' in play last Monday when many of those people voted NO to the bailout bill. Most of the NO votes on both sides of the aisle were from Reps up for re-election this year. Some changes were added by the Senate,who could afford to pass it much easier to start with. Now, the NO voters last Monday have some cover to take back to their constituent voters so they can say they were against it before they were for it and give the reasons why and get it all aired out BEFORE the election. This little dance will all start on MONDAY in their home districts, as most of them are probably standing in line at Dulles Airport to get the hell out of town right now !

So, this should NOT be a big surprise why the House had such an issue over all this. Reps got lots of emails from the 'vocal oppostion' for the most part about this Bill, and they responded in kind by not passing it on Monday.

Kind of ironic that in order for the House to pass the bailout bill with Republican support, they had to load in $100 plus billion dollars worth of pork. So to call themselves the party of fiscal responsibility seems to fly in the face of the facts.

When I said 'minimal' above, I meant minimal with respect to the 700 billion price tag of the original Bill. 1/7 of the original amount added as Pork.

Without this pork, the Republicans wouldn't have supported the bill.

The economy, by any measure, is in such a tailspin right now that all this bail out is going to accomplish is to stop the speed at which the financial industry is collapsing. Today's jobs report is just another indicator of the recession we've been in. Fasten your seatbelts. It's not going to turn around for a while according to the experts.

Pretty clear evidence of the stock market's irrational behavior going on today. Monday the bill fails and the market plunges 777 points. Today, the bill passes and now it stands at not quite 10 points up.

Go figure.

Of course, it goes without saying that as a taxpayer, it really hurts to have to pay not just for the bailout but for the pork, as well. While watching the debates at a pub last night, I made a comment to another viewer, "what's making my head spin right now isn't so much the beer I'm drinking as it is the huge dollar amounts at play here. Almost everything being discussed is in the billions of dollars."

I decided yesterday that I am not going to vote for either major party when it comes to Senate and Congress this election. Amd I was leaning in Gordon Smith's direction until the whole wooded arrow situation occurred.

I feel as though the current climate for this election has seriously changed hopefully for the better as voters are fed up after this bailout shit. I was hoping for more of a bankruptcy situation than the bailout. Every congressman and senator who is up for re-election and voted for this bailout plan might as pack their bags now cause they are all heading back home for good.

If you don't vote for the major party candidate, you're effectively voting for the major party candidate you like least.

"Every congressman and senator who is up for re-election and voted for this bailout plan might as pack their bags now cause they are all heading back home for good."

Wrong. This close to the election, this will only effect those races that were already tight and even then, the majority of voters that didn't want this bailout realize that there wasn't enough time to haggle over the solution. Without the bill getting through in short order, the failing credit markets would have shut down the nations economy quickly. It's already in motion, in fact. See the Schwarzenegger story about California being out of day to day money.

And this money distribution will take time to get into the marketing system. At least 3 weeks , more like 5. So we will have some more sell offs probably. And the market is waiting to see how Paulson/Treasury executes these deals on the toxic waste securities before they buy into any particular kind of investments.

One thing this bailout did affect. The Wakovia Bank sale. Instead of an FDIC take over or an FDIC facilitated sale to CITIGROUP for 2.2 billion, Wells Fargo bought them up at the last minute for 15 billion and change. Better for the stock holders than a bargain basement thing like Morgan, WAMU and Bears Stern and the like.

Now that "W" has signed the bill, next comes the 911 scale event. Bye Bye Election!

Ok, Craig, if this actually happens, cancelation of the election, I will be 'at your feet' for at least the next year. And then that would depend upon whether or not the Govt shuts down pdxradio.com !

I think it would take something greater than 9-11 to cancel a national election.

Remember, they don't call this month "ROCKtober" for nothing. The 29 Crash....

It seems its always about the last quarter of the year, or around that time. The crash of 87' was in October too.

CINCINNATI (Reuters) - A 90-year-old Ohio woman, facing eviction from the home she has lived in for 38 years, shot and wounded herself this week, becoming a grim symbol of the U.S. home mortgage crisis.

Addie Polk was found lying on the floor of her home with what appeared to be a self-inflicted gunshot wound to her shoulder when police came to the home on Wednesday to serve an eviction notice, Akron police spokesman Lt. Rick Edwards said on Friday.

Polk survived the shooting and is being treated in a hospital.

It was the latest attempt by sheriff's deputies to evict Polk from her modest single-family home because she could not keep up with her mortgage.

"It appears they're evicting her over her mortgage. She's lived in the house, the neighbors said, something like 38 years and in the last couple of years fell prey to some predatory lending company or financial institution," Edwards said.

Local news reports said deputies had tried to serve Polk's eviction notice more than 30 times before Wednesday's shooting.

Home foreclosure rates are at record highs in the United States, in many cases because buyers with adjustable interest rates could not keep up with sharp increases in monthly payments. The foreclosure crisis has sparked a wider housing market downturn and is at the heart of the U.S. financial crisis.

---

Maybe Hank Paulson or a banking executive can find it in their hearts to loan this woman a few bucks to pay off her mortgage.

Now I fully understand why only 10 percent of Americans trust bankers.

She didn't fall prey, she was living beyond her means and not willing to accept the reality that she could no longer afford to live there. This is a common trait among those that foreclose. Harsh truth, but the truth. Blaming banks, etc, is just a cop out.

A 90 year old woman and she didn't fall pray. That's the kind of comment I would expect from Vitalogy. As pdxradio.com's resident buttboy and brown noser extraordinaire for the banking industry, I wouldn't expect anything less from Vitalogy. After all, Vitalogy is always eager and willing to bend over and take it for the banking establishment. I'm sure if there is money involved, Vitalogy is more than willing to assume the position.

Here's a baby wipe Vitalogy. Go clean off your nose.

KARMA is a BIATCH!

Remember that Vitalogy.

"She didn't fall prey, she was living beyond her means and not willing to accept the reality that she could no longer afford to live there."

There is no fucking way you could have possibly known that when you posted it. Go ahead and research it and backwards-confirm your bet. I don't care. You act as if nobody is EVER a victim of anything, ever. Take it down a notch, man. You're tough and smart. Anyone who makes a mistake or is lied to is weak and dumb. We get it already.

There is no fucking way you could have possibly known that when you posted it.

Agreed. The lady is 90. This increases the possibility here finances were mismanaged by caregivers, but we're really guessing here and its a waste of time.

But we DO know it wasn't because she lost a bundle in Bush's privatized Social Security plan.

As for the people that batch politicans, remember they were ALL elected by the will of the people, including a majority of Americans that elected Bush for the 2nd time. You need to blame the real people responsible -- your friends, neighbors, co-workers, customers and family.

NO you need to blame voteing machine fraud, for the "re-election" of little bush.

I didn't vote for George W. Bush. Don't blame me.

Folks, there's no proof in that article that she DID fall prey and was taken advantage of. You are just assuming she was. Believe it or not, there are a far, far majority of folks who were not subject to predatory lending that are in trouble compared to the ones that did fall subject. Her age doesn't give her the right to use a "get out of paying your obligations" card. If her caregivers or she herself mismanaged her money, how is this the problem of the evil lender??

And no, I don't believe in karma. I'm a realist. Sometimes being a realist means understanding situations for what they are, rather than jumping to wild conclusions to suite your agenda. I call it like I see it and sometimes people are offended by it. Too bad.

Vitalogy--you should be a reverse mortgage salesperson. It's your calling. IMO

Getting back to pork, as a result of the bill, 33 Oregon counties will get about $740 million over the next 4 years.

http://www.oregonlive.com/news/index.ssf/2008/10/economic_bill_throws_rural_cou. html

This is good news for Oregon because we all faced higher taxes and those in rural Oregon faced service cuts beyond what should be cut.

Is pork a bad thing?

Yes, when our children thru about the next five generations are going to have to pay for it. It's not "free money".Just funny money.

The money for Oregon is long overdue. However the nearly trillion dollar Tub of Lard Bailout Act for the banking sector is not. You'd think these well educated morons would have known better. But as well have all learned, there is much to be said about the well educated morons in the banking sector -- and none of it very nice.

Too bad it took a gaggle of banking dipshits and their mortgage lending patsies to create a mess that would help rural Oregon.

You sound like someone who's been fired from the banking sector. Or a loan officer who's out of work.

Sadly my little man, my professional life has never involved banking. Thankfully I've never had to work in such a tawdry business. I avoided cretins like you and other wanna be financial wizards because they are the height of boorishness. Especially those in the nouveau category. And given you’re use of student loans, I’m sure that’s squarely where you fall.


(No offense to anyone who has used student loans. But in the case of our resident financial guru and model of moral and ethical perfection, you'd think he would have done the taxpayers a favor and worked, saved his money, then gone to school).

Borrowing money to get an education is a sound philosophy. Maybe you should try it rather than play armchair quarterback on subjects you know little about.

And by the way, jackass, the taxpayers had nothing to do with my student loans.

I don't believe in karma.

Karma.
Karma Police.
Instant Karma.
Karma Hunters.
Karma Chameleon.

I do.

Oh my dear little man, does it make you feel better that your loans didn't come from taxpayers? I'm glad you were able to set the record straight. I wouldn't want people to have the wrong impression of you -- Vitalogy at the public trough and all. We certainly wouldn't want to leave people with the impression that you've got a devil may care attitude when it comes to spending money other people’s money.

Unlike you, I don't need the public trough.

A reverse mortgage, done properly, pays out the equity to the owner over time. When and if the owner recieves all of the value, the payments to the owner stop. However, the 'former owner ' now is allowed to live in the house rent free for the rest of their life(s). The lender/ Bank owns the home, pays the property taxes. The resident is responsible for the monthly living expenses in the home, electric, gas garbage etc.

From the sounds of the article , it seems to me like she didnt have that sort of arrangement. Sounds like some kind of a pencilwhipped deal where some lender Refinanced the place for a wad of money creating a new loan and more payments that she couldnt handle, eventually. There are laws in some states protecting senior citizens from predatory lenders. Some judge will be looking at this one.

.... Get over it.

Ok, just as soon as MY congressman works in a 5,000 dollar roofing provision for
me. Realize that part of the problem is NO ONE IN CONGRESS and the SENATE wants to do what's right for EVERYONE unless there is something in it for them and their home district. WITH THE PORK ADDED, The BAIL OUT BILL SUCKED EVEN WORSE!

How about if they added back Ted Stevens Bridge to nowhere? Still acceptable to you then Vitalogy? WHAT IS ACCEPTABLE PORK? What isn't?

As for the 90 year old who shot herself.

The details that weren't in the article.

She was the husbands second wife. they had NO children together. He died and DID NOT LEAVE the house to her. Other family members got the house.
She got a mortgage to purchase the home... kind of buy it from us or get out. The home is in a depressed market and not worth what was owed. she got Social Security only. She did not have the income to make her payments and survive. Basically no one was looking out for her interests. The bank wasn't, and her Husbands family wasn't.

A REVERSE MORTGAGE was not an option. Tragic. Sellers self interest. Just business to the bank. Deputies just doing a distasteful part of their job. A ninety year old woman with no options.

Not predatory lending this time. She was the only option for the seller, and backed into a corner. buy the house you've lived in for all these years, or get out. No compassion from the family of the husband. No one to look out for her.

This situation is People at their worst.

AND THAT is the rest of the story. How about 20 thousand in PORK for this woman?

Oh KAY...as I have said on other threads...

There are many stories from the " Naked City " .

The Republicans have done their best to dismantle and clog up the American machinery. It is for that reason they bear the blame for the majority of issues facing the country today.

Face the facts. Most of the country's problems aren't new. Clearly, however, the administration of George the Shrub has either ignored or exacerbated all the preexisting problems as well as added a few whoppers of their own (Iraq).

This election has two dynamics at work. The first is "party in power fucking it up" and the second is "old and more of the same" versus "new, youthful and willing to push for changes."

It's a no brainer. Of course the Republicans, having starved education for almost over a decade, ignored key issues like energy, pollution, detente, <insert> and now find themselves with no new plans, a candidate who's old, getting older, angry, uninformed, disconnected, <insert> have few options left but to take this beating and regroup. Look for the Republicans to make a strong comeback in 2050.

By 2050 I'll be looking at dirt, from underneath!

I hope Bam Bam does well, but my fear is the creation of a european style socialism.

Vee Vill haf za new vorld order!

According the the New York Times, there were a number of earmarks and tax breaks for northwestern states added to the bailout. Of course, thanks to pork designed to court Don Young, Alaska was one of the many beneficiaries.

The story claims that the "kiddie arrows" tax break was there to woo Peter DeFazio, but omitted the fact that Gordon Smith was the first to propose it in the Senate. The article also discussed a bicycle incentive that was added to bring Earl Blumenauer into the fold.

It does make one thing clear: "Kiddie arrows" and bike provisions did not change the outcome. DeFazio and Blumenauer both stood firm and voted against the revised bailout.

There is some hopeful news from the Akron Beacon Journal about the elderly woman who faced eviction and shot herself. Even if her family had sent her away to a home, the story may still have been tragic. According to the dispassionate financial reporters at the Wall Street Journal, the elderly and handicapped are being regularly evicted from nursing homes and assisted living facilities.

There is still plenty of bad news for our growing population of Veterans and their families too. Thousands of sad stories have been unfolding in places like Seattle, Topeka, York, Macon, Aurora, Chico, Washington D.C., Fort Myers, Huntsville, San Antonio, Venice, Eagle River, Mountain View, Los Angeles and New Orleans. For decades, folks who served our country have been suffering quietly in cities big and small from coast to coast. Until everyone was in the same boat, it was hard to get people to really care about the plight of our soldiers.

It was not always this way. The April 2, 1920 issue of the New York Yimes describes a period when Americans were not so passive seeing Veterans and their families made homeless. I believe that most of our nation is appalled, but for some, it is enough to worship Ayn Rand and Milton Friedman while vigorously wiggling a little imported cloth flag.

So, we find out that the old lady from Ohio was a serial cash out refinacer, not a victim of predatory lending. Everyone here was ready to tar and feather the lender over her plight before seeing the facts of the case. Based on her history, this is an example of a person who can not afford the life they live. Harsh, but true. She should have sold the home and downsized, but after reading the article, it's clear that she was in denial about her situation, all the while playing the shell game that serial cash out refinancers play. I'm sure her age had something to do with it as well, but it's not an excuse.

My bigger problem with how this went down is that how many other people out there will shoot themselves in an effort to have their debts forgiven?

Hey, let's play the same games wall street did.

So, we get one "I just want to leave this world" sucker, and buy a lot of life insurance on him. Then, borrow against both the value of the policy, and swap the risk with our friends to capture the higher value, should he tip over.

According to wall street, money is made either way right?

......If you don't vote for the major party candidate, you're effectively voting for the major party candidate you like least......

Load 'o crap.

Isn't that like saying I only root for the yankees or red sox because they win.

You vote your convictions, NOT which one of the TWO major parties you dislike the least.

The Washington Post told Ralph Nader that they wouldn't give his campaign any coverage because he couldn't win to which he replied, "Then why do you cover the Nationals?"

Same point and a legitimate one.

.

Rooting and voting are two different things. Your team stands no better or worse for you rooting for them.

The Nationals get coverage because they are a Major League Baseball team and have a geographic market that is interested in them. Ralph Nader gets no coverage because he's irrelevent.

You can vote for your convictions if you want, but it's still a fact that if you don't vote for one of the major party candidates that will win, you're effectively voting for the major party candidate you like least. If it makes you feel better knowing you voted your convictions, sobeit.

But, that kind of attitude is exactly why places like Ohio and Michigan find themselves in the crapper. Voting against your best interests because you're "keeping it real".

Google "keeping it real chappelle's show" and get back to me.

My bigger problem with how this went down is that how many other people out there will shoot themselves in an effort to have their debts forgiven?

I will keep it real: Suicide is already the latest and greatest economic tool. This popular new option has spread like a virus all around the globe. So, next time the subject comes up, please count your blessings and try to exercise some compassion.

Hey, let's play the same games Wall Street did.

So, we get one "I just want to leave this world" sucker, and buy a lot of life insurance on him. Then, borrow against both the value of the policy, and swap the risk with our friends to capture the higher value, should he tip over.

According to Wall Street, money is made either way right?

Right.

.....you're effectively voting for the major party candidate you like least.....

Your conclusion is flawed because you take the position that the proposition is "EITHER/OR."

So, let's say for a moment that there was another candidate on the ballot who had a position that you agreed with on every point, Taxes, Spending, Health care, Energy, the whole platform. Now you would not vote for this person for the simple reason that they could not win outside the two party system. Even though they are on the ballot as a valid candidate. Basically you are saying you will take a lesser choice for the sole reason that they have the better chance of winning. I'll throw it back at you. It is YOU who are wasting YOUR vote, and perpetuating the mediocrity that exists is national politics. McCain and Obama, were the media darlings, neither is representitive of the mainstream of their party. McCain more a compromise as the safest choice for a party not quite ready to take a bold step and risk alienating their base, Obama the shooting star, a feel good candidate that on the surface shows as a bold step forward.

The reality: McCain, safe business as usual. The VP pick, window dressing to show as a bold step outside the beltway.

Obama, the appearance of a bold new direction perceived as champion of the regular guy. The VP pick, same old piece of the good old boy network, the harness that ties Obama back to mainstream politics.

Biden keeps Obama for pulling too hard left.
Palin pulls McCain to the right.

Either way, don't take your hands off the steering wheel, or you will wind up in the ditch.

NEITHER party offers anything "in my best interests" this time around. I'm glad one does for you. That means YOU are voting YOUR best interest. Yet you chastise me for voting mine.

.....that kind of attitude is exactly why places like Ohio and Michigan find themselves in the crapper......

Is that statement based on your expert psycological analysis, or your excellent grasp on the political and business climates of those regions?

The reality is these regions are more likely to vote politics as usual voting the D or the R rather than looking at the candidates and positions. They let the manufacturing base slip away and replaced the moneys by taxation rather than encouraging new business. BOTH STATES created unattractive environments to new business because of their TAXING policies, and the willingness of the voters to return the same Ds and Rs. The office may change but the same people recycle through different levels of government. All you have to do is look at the tax rates for both states over the past 20 years.
No growth in jobs, decrease in population. As long as the tax burden continues to grow on a smaller base, this cycle will continue. Without a fresh crop of new politicians with new ideas the trend will continue. Vote for the same, the results are the same. But hey, like you say, these guys are the ones who can win so I guess it is in my best interest to vote for these same people. On the National level you say McCain is McSame. Well look closer and Obama/Biden are the Dems version of business as usual.

Local or national you have to create a solid job market, the business creating the job has to be concious of the fact that the wages paid are what drives the economy. Every tax dollar collected is one less that can be spent to grow the economy. Every dollar in wages that a business can keep from paying is one less dollar that can be spent to grow the economy.

Record oil company profits come at the expense of other segments, fewer cars sold, more money spent on less food, increased costs for other producers. Same amount of money circulating but the percentages for each segment is less. Taxing the excess profits does nothing to equalize the dollars circulating within the economy. Taxing excess profits does not lower the cost of fuel, or give people more dollars to spend. It boils down to a specific segment of the business world being responsible enough to recognize their relationship to the economy as a whole. If a business chooses to shed jobs to increase profits, or raise prices to the point that other segments of the economy are impacted, then they shirk their responsibility. It boils down to the GREED MENTALITY. That is what needs to be fixed.
The greed mentality also put us in the fix we are in in addition to the IRAQ mistake that drained the treasury. This is why we are in trouble. Higher taxes will be necessary to pay for the BOOSH years. The higher taxes will slow the growth in the economy. IT will be of the utmost importance for the next administration to severely cut government spending to bring order as quickly as possible.

I do not believe either candidate capable of controlling Government spending. In all honesty, do you?

The effective result is either or. That is absolutely how it is all going to go down.

Vote, no vote, vote third party. All comes down to either or.

So then, if you vote third, you get your choice made for you. That's the cost of political theatre.

Is that worth it?

Depends.

Depends on if the statement has impact. In this election, the case for third party votes having impact is there, but also comes with negative consequenses.

In 2000, a good friend of mine really wanted to vote green. Was a registered party member, cast his vote and engaged in a lot of advocacy to get others to vote. National efforts were worked on, "to make a statement".

Gore lost.

It was close enough for the Republicans to play games with the courts.

Thinking back over the last two terms, was that statement worth it?

Lots of people think Nader is toxic these days. My green party friend is a Democrat this year because he needs THE BETTER choice elected, same as I do. Same as you do.

There are no right choices, only differences in how good they are, or how bad, depending on perspective.

The only way a vote for a third party makes any sense at all is if BOTH MAJOR PARTY choices are not all that different. Can you really say that Roger?

Think an Obama supreme court pick is gonna be better than a McCain one? Think that Obama will spend the same way McCain will? If Bush brought us higher taxes by creating an economic boom from borrowed money (and he did), you really think McCain isn't gonna do that?

If you are tired of only having two choices, then getting involved with third parties that are also focused on Primary Politics is the way to go.

There is no path from just having a party to the White House. Won't happen.

There is however a path from a really focused party to a Senate or House seat. Maybe smaller seats. Commissioner, etc...

Bernie Sanders is outside the norm. He's independent. Why are there not more of his kind?

Failure to embrace and make use of primary politics, that's why.

So go ahead and toss your vote. There is an upside to having your choices made for you and that is you can bitch a lot and say, "I didn't vote for them." It's a nice warm fuzzy. If enough people go your way, we all will need that damn warm fuzzy.

Personally, I would prefer to avoid that problem. Hit the phones man, spend some time getting people registered, go help out and meet some people. The networking might help with the job scene too --you never know.

I think politics is a lot like a poker tournament. There isn't any one decision that gets you to the final table and the prize. It's a series of good decisions that wins the day, not one big leap.

So then, each vote matters. Each cycle matters.

How else do you think these crooks got where they are? It took 30 years or so to get that neo-conservative movement up, running and potent.

They knocked it out of the park, where establishing a new policy is concerned. Now it's our turn.

Personally, I'm voting a full ticket. Check the boxes all down the ballot. If it's a D, I'm there. Sort out the asses from the good guys next cycle.

You?

Unfortunately, politics is the place where you find the worst humans on the planet drowning out the efforts of some of the best. In the last 60 years, the Republicans have put forth some real scumbags. Like Richard Nixon.

The last old senile Republican that got elected, Reagan, also fucked up the economy (not to mention that he started the ball rolling on screwing up broadcasting, and for that alone belongs in the hall of assholes).

The right screams for less government, except when it suits their agenda for the federal government to take control of something like abortion. They are the biggest problem in America today. The right wants a fascist state. After this upcoming blowout, the right wingers will have to regroup and start the 30 year process alluded to above all over again. They have shown they can't deal with power. Period.

I think that only Roger really knows what Roger's best interests are, in the same way that we only know what our own best interests are. Realistically speaking, the winner in this election will be one of the two major party candidates. I don't know which one it will be, and regardless of which one it is, I don't know whether the economic picture will improve as a result. I am just not on either the "Obama means change and hope" or the "McCain is a maverick who won't give you the same-old same-old" bandwagons.

Roger, either McCain or Obama will win the election. No third party candidate stands a chance of winning, not even a .000000000000000001% chance. I'm a realist when it comes to these things and I don't agree with everything Obama stands for, but what I do know is that Obama would do many more things I agree with than McCain. Therefore, Obama will get my vote because I'd rather have Obama than McCain. Voting for a third party in an election where there's no chance to win is a waste of your vote. All the idiots that voted for Nader in 2000 now know this. They helped get Bush elected, which can only be assumed was the worst case scenario for those that voted for Nader. If there was a third party candidate that had a chance, such as Perot back in the 90's, then that's a different ball game. I have no problem with people that vote a LEGITIMATE third party that is in a position to compete, but those that cast their vote for a sure fire loser are voting against their best interests.

If that is true then, McCain, according to the most recent polls and commentaries is a sure fire loser.

All McCain supporters, should switch to Obama, because according to your last post it's in their best interest.....

I just don't see your reasoning. I don't think McCain best represents me, so I HAVE to vote for Obama but, I don't think Obama best represents my beliefs so I HAVE to vote for McCain. But their IS a third party candidate that is closest to my thinking but he can't win, (but might make a showing if he actually got the votes from people who voted their own position rather than following your reasoning) so I am supposed to throw my support to one of the others? THAT would be a wasted vote.

Dude, you have a choice: A or B. Choose what's better and get over yourself. If you choose C, then you're allowing others to make your choice for you. It's that simple.

> I believe that most of our nation is appalled, but for some, it is enough to worship Ayn Rand
> and Milton Friedman while vigorously wiggling a little imported cloth flag.

This almost sounds like an allusion to one Libertarian Party ideology that I am not completely comfortable with: globalization should be celebrated because in the long run, it facilitates an evolution towards the most efficient ways to conduct business. On a purely theoretical level (where many of the people championing this idea like to operate), this makes sense. However in the real world, it is almost impossible for one to not have some other interests (namely staying employed so that one can continue supporting a consumer culture lifestyle by buying the cheap imported products) in how globalization plays out. The purely theoretical people trivialize the difficulty of developing new industries that do things that the US could do better and more efficiently than China and other overseas countries can--at least at the moment.

Roger, those McCain voters have a different set of value judgments than most of us do, or they are just really dumb. They are gonna say exactly the same thing about us!

So how to sort it out? Fuck 'em. Figure out what you value and why and then vote to improve the aligment on that every time. In the aggragate, this is how the process is supposed to work.

So we factor out the dumb ones and that leaves the rest. Guess what they are doing? Voting their interests, just like you should be. Anything else is a win for those left in the process trying to get more of what they want.

Speak or be spoken for man. It's real.

McCain will benefit them and they know it, can point to how and where they will get the benefit and are going to vote accordingly.

No reason for them to switch. In fact, they stay solid and work their asses off getting enough others to vote with them and it's a win.

Now, contrast that to the third party voter. They won't get the benefit and actually carry some risk, depending on whether Obama or McCain is better aligned with their interests.

So, either they don't care (doubtful), or they value making that statement over the other things that are more tangible.

If you are there, then I suggest you vote your third party. That does mean that making a statement is worth the McCain risk.

Again, are you there on that? Here's the ugly part: If you don't know, that's part of the greater national problem! So, fix that. Will do you some good and will do me some good. (all of us actually!) That's why I'll bother with a post of this kind.

I didn't know until I was shown why knowing matters. Look at the last 8 years! Tell me it does not seriously fucking matter and I'll yield and never talk about it again. (but it does, you know it does, I know it does, and most importantly, those powerful interests looking to get more powerful know it does and hope you are too fucked or too busy to bother to know it does)

I'm not trying to get you to vote for Obama as much as I'm trying to get you to sort out what matters and what does not.

That's what the vote is for!

Now, say you just don't want the gays to get married, or you really believe that helping the rich get richer somehow helps you get richer. Then McCain is your guy!

If those don't apply, then it's Obama for sure.

I know some Aerospace / Defense people that are totally for McCain, for example. If there is more war, they are gonna do very well. They are voting their interests and it all comes down to just how many people are aligned with McCain.

Can't blame them for that. Don't like it, but I grok it.

What I don't get is not voting your self interest and knowing why that vote is important and what it means. It may seem small, but it's an important step in the process.

I believe we are where we are because way too many people failed to take ownership of this stuff. It's very easy to say they are all corrupt, government does not work, both choices are the same, my vote does not matter, and on and on and on.

This year I've talked to a lot of people about this stuff. I tell them how I'm gonna vote and why, and they tell me. This is good. This is important and it helps people realize it matters enough to warrant some thought and if we get there, we will make better decisions.

At the least, we will have a higher percentage of people not willing to just swallow the line on the TV.

So that's it. I'm not gonna write on it any more. Just thought you might enjoy some perspective.

I enjoy your perspective. well thought, well presented.

It's the flippant ..."get over yourself"...
comment that digs in my heels.

Sounds like the best option is to skip the nationals all together and concentrate on the locals. Don't know about you, but every cycle, I usually get a knock on the door from actual state office candidates, and not just the campaign volenteers. Usually a mistake on their part because I will bend their ear for an hour. Any one that bails is out of consideration. Nothing like a face to face to get a real feel for their interest in my concerns. Looking at this years crop, I will happily divide my vote between Ds and Rs with emphasis on weeding out the "lifers" and "job hoppers".

I don't share Pelosi's view of the world, Of the whole pack, she is one of the scariest and I can't vote her out except working to see more Rs get in the house. That didn't work so well with an R in the big house. Sure looks no win.

My message is fix US first. Then we can help save the world.....

Maybe...

Skipping the nationals is a half-in affair. Either this stuff matters, or it does not. If it does, then we should be voting.

Concentrating on the locals is a very good idea. It's one I'm going to put some time into, particularly if thirds post up some people. I'mm give them some time for sure. Maybe dollars too, depending on if I have them.

I've only gotten the knock ONCE! It was Tom Potter, working the streets of Portland. Spoke with him for about half an hour. He was just going up the street, with a few runners looking to find out who would talk and who would not.

Damn cool, and we should see more of that.

Agreed on the last. Our own house is NOT in order. I'm not for just bunkering in to get the fix done, but clear priorities would be a big help right now.

Understood on the "get over yourself" bit. Sometimes people say stuff that sucks!

Anyway, after we've seen the national cycle run it's course, it's going to be local politics for a few years. The Kos people are running this saying, "elect more and better Democrats" Yeah, I'm there.

Generally speaking, more and better people is probably closer to what we really need done. More turnover, and better support for good choices.

Boy, there is a lot to comment on, but I will try to focus on just third parties.

First of all, our friend Roger has every right to vote for the candidate of his choosing. To all of the angry Republicans who blamed Perot or LaRouche for their losses in '92 and '96, and all of the angry Democrats who blamed Nader for their losses in '00 and '04, I have one thing to say: Get over yourself.

If you want your candidate to win, you have to earn every vote. This means conducting a campaign that is both comprehensive and inclusive. This means being clear when you make your case to the people. If, after the dust of the primaries settles, some folks feel that they are better represented by a third party, they have every right to vote that way. This is America.

Second, I believe that third parties are very effective locally and ought to be considered every cycle. In this region, both Libertarians and Greens have made compelling cases for election. Both of those smaller parties push the two major parties to re-examine their priorities, their platforms and their perspective on public policy. Third parties often include broader and more contemporary views.

Third, a third party has a few different ways to become "legitimate" in the eyes of voters. Some folks really like the Ross Perot, Mitt Romney and Michael Bloomberg way of expanding a fiefdom by purchasing political power with personal wealth. Others prefer a grassroots effort like Shirley Chisholm, Ralph Nader or Pat Buchanan that forces a major party to see the widening gaps in their base.

Finally, there will always be wingnuts who try to legitimize an indefensible position through the process. Modern third parties have included the occasional David Duke, Lyndon LaRouche or other extremist. In spite of the crackpots, there is a proud tradition in our country of third party runs. Most notably, Teddy Roosevelt and his Progressive Party bids.

I would encourage everyone to vote regardless of their affiliation. Yes, we are often faced with false choices, compromises and nose holding options. Still, it is worth the effort. Our country, and indeed all democracy, lives or dies by the ballot box.

Hey, I never said Roger or anyone else doesn't or shouldn't have the "right" to vote for a third party. I'm simply pointing out the reality of doing so, specifically in regards to the Presidential contest where a third party candidate stands zero chance of winning.

Roger and Missing, you are spot on about getting a knock at the door from a candidate. Both Cindy Banzer and Ron Wyden stopped by our house back in the 1980s and made compelling cases for election. Many years later, all of our family -- and many thousands of others he reached out to over the years -- helped Wyden get to the U.S. Senate.

During his first bid to represent us in Salem, Ben Cannon spent an hour talking with my folks when I was visiting. He has continued to interact by e-mail ever since. He is accountable and accessible. Ben fields questions at regular neighborhood get-togethers and answers his own mail. For his honesty and earnest efforts, he has earned lifetime consideration on our ballots.

This kind of old fashioned stumping and interaction pays real dividends in the long run with only a small investment of time. I think that constituent interaction is vital. You have to be able to reflect and balance the opinions of your district. You achieve long-term legislative success with your community first. It is not just a tool for election runs. Staying in touch with your neighbors is how you do a good job in office too.

Alfredo, yes you nailed it, that was a jab at globalists. I see no difference between putting the slaves in the ships or taking the ships to the slaves. No sane person could support the kind of economy that we have created these last few decades. Those who do now, would have fought for child labor in this just passed century, and fought against the abolitionists in centuries past.

Missing, I grok the feelings of folks in aerospace and military tech too. With their cutting edge backgrounds, I hasten to remind them that they are in the pilot's seat. In a new "green" economy, they will have plenty of long term projects, the companies will have more local jobs to offer and the unions will be stronger. Job security will no longer be a joke. It does not always work, but it gets 'em thinking.

Does the $440,000.00 vacation that AIG recently took part in qualify as "PORK"?

Yep. I bring that up quite often.

A larger manufacturing base means more potential diversity for the discipline in general and that is always, always a good thing.

Met with a local manufacturer here this week. Can't disclose the topics, but I can say it's very interesting hearing their challenges. These guys don't export squat.

It's all made here and that comes with a price, but they've countered with a good story and lots of community involvement. It's a nice combo really.

If we saw a general expansion of this, those cost negatives would be seriously diminished, opening the field for start ups and niche players. That's how all of the current survivors got there, so they understand this very well.

Besides, I think the military will jump on this pretty huge. Having energy dependence is a serious weakness. If we can build sustainable and in their case, rapidly deployable, energy sources, there will be plenty of DOD type work to do, even for them.

It's such a fun topic too. Interest runs high among most ordinary people. Wind, solar, bio-fuels, hydro, tidal, thermal, kinetic (charge your cell while walking or biking, for example), atomic...

I find it very interesting that for all our advances, we largely just burn stuff and hope for the best!

Love your community comments. A whole lot of this really is local. We take ownership that way, we talk that way and we can make and maintain friends that way.

Divisive politics really do suck huge.

Globalization is not all rosy. I think it's got merit, but only when applied in the right way.

My big beef with that is that governments allow markets to exist. They set the rules and under our system, are supposed to serve the common good, in that we are better with them than without them.

So then, not all governments operate this way.

If we don't take steps to make sure global efforts promote core human rights, then really we are just selling ours. Well, multi-national corporations are selling ours.

China is cheap because their people have nothing! Their environment is being trashed and they work a lot for just core living in a lot of cases.

Call me an idealist or extremist, but that's just raw exploitation. Not the balance we are supposed to be striking here.

Our lives are finite and we all deserve to live them. That means a fair cut in return for building wealth. Get too greedy and the people are denied just compensation for their labor. Get too lax and not enough core things get done to move our race along as it should.

Somewhere in there, the raw cost became the driving factor and now we are really paying for that huge.

(and that's the core of this financial mess, IMHO We don't have real wealth generation growth, so we print up funny money to make it appear as though we do.)

The Bush boom (cough!) is borrowed money!

On the other hand, the seriously innovative times starting from the 30's was real money, backed by real value and that was real wealth.

We sold the ability to do that, so now we've got to do something else.

Enter green / alternative energy (I hope!)

Does the $440,000.00 vacation that AIG recently took part in qualify as "PORK"?

Yes, but if lawmakers put the hammer down, they will have to pay it all back.