Re:Why are Nader voters and his party so cluess?
on
The Hidden Swing State?
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Not quite true- Nader isn't green this time around, and Cobb is supporting his local candidates (and Kerry BTW- which is why Cobb hasn't been campaigning in swing states). Here in Oregon we've got a number of Green state legislators, and the Green Party is supporting a bid to turn PGE into a PUD, instead of letting Texas Power buy it from Enron (and continue to siphon off $40,000 a year in tax money collected but not owed to the state, since the parent company is running PGE at a loss).
Errr... Nader isn't connected to the Green Party this election. He's the Reform Party candidate, IIRC. David Cobbs (who did a/. Q&A a while back) is the Green Party candidate.
Partially true- and depends on your state. In Oregon Nader's not even on the ballot- but if he was he'd have to be listed as an Independant.
UNLIKE the headline, this isn't necessarily about Nader or Cobb- while they are pushed in the 2nd "e-mail your friends", the general push of this petition is to let Kerry know that a large number of people voting for him have other agendas- like actually letting families survive, preserving the environment, rejecting corporate control over our lives and so on. I urge anybody who has ever supported a third party candidate in their lives and who doesn't support Bush to sign this petition- let's get a slashdot of signatures on this list!
Can the school shooters EVER achieve their goal without violence? I was never able to do so. And certainly the pain got to the point at times where I wished for an end to it- for some that end comes in suicide. I never did find a solution to it; even in adult society I am of the unclean and unwanted to some extent. It's why I became a computer programmer (only to recently have that, too, ripped away to the point that I could only find employment working for the State). And I don't believe for a second that the school shooters ARE simply narcissistic behavior. Oppression is oppression, no matter who is doing the oppressing and what system it is occuring under.
I agree that a certain percentage of Hamas no longer wants a seat at the negotiating table; their aim of a truly free democracy with separation of church and state in Palestine has been utterly frustrated. But they are NOT the only faction in PA, nor are they the only people in Palestine by any means.
Beyond all of that- I thank you for this disucssion, now I understand why neurotypical society can't deal with terrorism, and think these phenomena are separate. I didn't understand before- and yet even while disagreeing, I understand now.
Isn't that too broad of a definition to be meaningful ? It seems include armed robbery and extortion, for one thing. I don't think it's useful to relabel everything terrorism, just because someone might have been scared or intimidated.
I see no difference between the extortion of Hamas against the Israeli government and the extortion of a blackmailer against a politician he disagrees with- why do you?
Paypal's entire original profit structure was built on the float. They earned interest on your money recieved into a paypal account during the time it took to transfer that money to your checking account (which is why it takes 3-5 business days). Now that e-bay owns Paypal, they may be moving away from using it as a profit center and towards using it more as a service for auctioners and vendors.
That isn't enough to make school shootings "terrorism," since the perpetrators are not part of any organized attempt to change government policy (i.e. having a political agenda).
I would disagree with that one- I'd in fact call the current crop of anarchists in the Millenial Generation very organized at their terror.
While the Hamas bomber is alienated as well, they are part of an organization with a coherent political agenda which their attack supports, rather than a random act by a disaffected individual or two. That's a rather important difference because it has large implications for understanding why we get the behavior we see, and how we can go about changing it. You can't try to reduce organized political violence in the same way as individual and imitative violence by disaffected teens - it won't work.
Seems to me the real key is the same in both cases- give them a voice in the shape of their society. Giving Hamas a seat at the table negotiating the borders of Israel is the same as giving the disaffected teen a place in the high school society, and accomplishes the same goal, prevention of violence.
Calling Columbine, Santee, and so on acts of terrorism both confuses the issue of what terrorism really is and diminishes what those events really represent.
Ok, if not the cry for justice and a voice in the political process (which is what Coumbine, Santee, and so on were) what is it that the larger scale terrorist events really represent? If not for a political goal for an oppressed people who have no other voice, why resort to terrorism?
Rage against the system/= a political agenda. Considering them the same thing is analytically useless, since it conflates dissimilar activities under one category and muddies our ability to understand both forms of behavior. By the way, I've both been an outsider, and I study terrorism.
And yet you don't see the tendency for teachers supporting cliques to be a governmental system in oppression of some teenagers? They're not dissimilar activities at all- I can fully understand that a young Hamas member, with no job prospects, who feels cut off from functioning society blowing himself up on a bus is EXACTLY THE SAME EMOTIONAL CONTENT as Kip Kinkel killing his parents, several students, and asking to die. Not to realize this ignores a significant reason behind the terrorism- why the individual terrorists really do what they do. Like I said- I've actually BEEN there (though I've usually been a little more intelligent with my terrorism- a torched locker here- super geling powder in somebody's drink there; but I'm MUCH better now).
I guess you were never a hated outsider if you think that Coumbine and even Kip Kinkel in Springfield didn't have their political agendas.
Same with people going "Postal"- it's a rage against what is seen to the individual, however wrongly, as an oppressive system. Human beings don't kill people at random- it takes YEARS of oppressions to create these situations, and the high school shootings are EXACTLY the same problem as McVeigh, Hamas, and Al Qaeda- amall men who feel oppressed by the social situation that has disenfranchised them from the larger political process. Whether you're talking nations or cliques in a high school doesn't really matter- the primary motivation behind creating the terror IS politically based.
You don't think that the Columbine killings were about non-state actors (students who had been ostracized based on looks alone) targeting innocents (other students) as a part of their attempt to coerce a government over a political agenda (get the teachers/school board to get SERIOUS about anti-bullying programs)? I would have thought it was obvious- but only because many times during my school career I fantasized about doing exactly the same thing.
Terrorism only requires Terror. Hence the name. A single hostage, a hijacked airliner, a poisoned water supply, an assault case, all count as terrorism because they produce terror.
Now one can argue whether the INTENT was terrorism or not- but in most cases it is, even with the lone mugger who wants to scare you into handing over lunch money.
The point of the grandparent is that they weren't just "Peaceably" assembling- that this was in fact building up to a full scale riot. Given the way this campaign is going, I'd have a tendency to agree- and I think that President Bush himself deserves a lot of the blame for why that is so, since actually meeting with people that don't sign a loyalty oath does not seem to be a strategy in his campaign.
True enough- as far as it goes. Though I personally give China's lack of a reasonable minimum wage much more credit for their current boom, as well as their willingness to use slave labor.
I'd also point out that at no time since 1895 has a trickle down tax structure actually worked in the United States to produce economic growth for the lower classes.
Yep- that's just the way 60% of Germany voted Hitler into office (the Nazis got less than 40% of the vote- but still won the election because they had a plurality). And since I've just invoked Godwin's Law- that's my last word on the subject.
So how do you suppose it is some people can come to this country and survive on less than minimum wage, and not only survive, but thrive?
Actually, I don't see very many doing that even in the last 5 years. Most of them come here illegally, and end up dying here in the desert. The grand majority don't get rich in the first generation- very few even end up getting citizenship. I've seen this happen in the past- but not under the current cheap-labor, profit above humanity regime.
I'll tell you why:
#1) they didn't stay at minimum wage for any length of time - skilled kitchen help at restaurants, for example, is worth a lot more than minimum wage. Sure, you start out as a bus boy, but once they've worked at all the jobs in the kitchen, you're worth quite a bit more. These people then go on to start their own restaurant, or work as a manager at an existing one.
Really? How many people who can't speak English do you know running restaurants? Heck- I never go to the restaurants that have busboys- but I applied for jobs at a few during my 26 months of unemployment.
#2) I'm hardly bigoted - I work for a minority owned firm and enjoy it, thank you very much, and my wife is an immigrant (legally so); indeed I'm probably far more tolerant than most people who go out of their way to loudly proclaim their tolerance and forcefully demand tolerance of others. I'm just quiet about it.
An American wasn't good enough for you to marry- isn't it interesting how the tolerance is all one way, towards tollerance of the immigrants- while the bigotry of the Congressional American Worker Replacement Program goes entirely unseen.
#4) the glass ceiling of people judgeing by appearances So we have a loud, visible tatoo, do we? *snicker*
Nope- just student loans on my credit report (mainly paid off- but they were at an American institution, and so as such, they count against me getting hired for minimum wage anywhere in the United States).
#5) Starting a business takes having some money to begin with. It's called loans. Try a bank. Or family, if you haven't alienated them all.
The family's not much better off than I am- and having my income cut to get a job means that I already have more loans than I can ever hope to repay- so like you said in your other missive- the banks won't lend if your income is decreasing. I'd almost be better off if I went bankrupt- but my pride and dignity says pay back what I owe, don't try to duck out like the upper class cowards with their limited liability corporations. This country provided people with a living at one time- it can again; it will just take a paradigm shift on the part of my generation. We've got to stop supporting parasites who just push paper, we've got to actually PRODUCE more than we CONSUME. My problems are MINOR compared with others- I at least have a roof over my head, I've found a niche in State Government (currently as a contractor- but that will likely be going permanent in the next 6 months!), if we just reduce our consumption a little more we can begin paying off our debt and eventually move into a smaller house. The Health Insurance situation can be taken care of by taking my kid to the Shriners and getting a pre-existing condition cleared up through charity (nothing genetic- he was just caught in the birth canal for 7 hours and was born with a clubbed foot- with physical therapy the most he'll need is a brace when he's two). I've got ways out- but having been shoved down once makes me want to correct this so that my kid doesn't have to grow up in a world where he's a second class citizen just for being born in Oregon.
Perhaps you should consider moving somewhere with a lower cost of living?
Considered it- but it would cost me $10,000 to do so at this time because land values have been dropping so fast in my area. (Yes, I know- conventional wisdom is that Real Estate always goes up- but when the major industry of an area is in a depression that ain't always true)
I'm frankly surprised your bank financed a home that is 50% of your income. It's rare they finance as much as a ratio of 40%.
It was 25% of my income when it was originally financed- the Bush/Clinton/Baby Boomer mismanagement of the current recession has resulted in a massive drop in income for me.
So now we're back to the issue of life choices. You don't have to live in Oregon, and you don't have to live in a house that expensive. You choose to do these things.
I choose these things because that's where I was born and that's where I have family- why should native 'gonies be destroyed so that the stock market can stay high? I really know the answer to that- because profit is God, and anybody saying any different is a blasphemer.
While you can't avoid all expenses (taxes and health care), you should address the things you can affect.
And as long as I owe $10,000 over the value of the house, there isn't any way I can affect that- other than to do what I can to end this insanity that is neo* economics.
Is there any possibility your wife could work? Even part time would no doubt help a lot.
She was- got laid off again at the begining of October (for the third time in as many years). Unlike what you seem to think- there's a major recession in the job market. We've both got college degrees, we've both always got good reviews from employers- but that's not enough any more if you're an American (on the other hand, if you're a Mexican, or Chinese, or Hindu, there are plenty of jobs here).
Also, if you don't already, check out Clark Howard! Not sure what station he'd be on out there, but if you can find him on the radio and spare some time to listen, he might give you some helpful ideas.
I listen to him- but he's still stuck in that Baby Boomer "If you just work hard you will get raises" lie- instead of what we've found for the past 5 years, which is if you work hard you'll get laid off and be unemployed for a minimum of 6 months (my unemployment last time lasted 26 months). Just can't trust private industry anymore here- at least, not enough to actually predict how much one should pay for a house or how long of a mortgage one can commit to. (I should have known- but nobody told me as I was working hard in school that the best I could ever do for a "permanent" position was 2 years and 2 months).
There is more to the world than Kerry==white && Bush==black
Or for that matter- Kerry==black && Bush==White. Completely agreed- but the choice is a vote between Bad and Worse, there's no chance at all of a third party making it.
Still- I hold out hope- got my ballot but haven't filled it out yet- I still may yet be voting for Peroutka.
Pick one. Regardless of which one you pick, there will have been many other options. Bush picked this one, rightly or wrongly. In an alternate universe, he picked Iran - and you are still complaining there were other choices.
Absolutely true- Just wanted to clarify- Iraq was not the only choice for fighting the war on terror; not going to Iraq does not AUTOMATICALLY mean that the terrorists get away without any punishment at all.
You can only make one choice at a time - and the fact that there are other options merely is evidence that a choice was made, not that the wrong choice was made.
Nor does it automatically mean that the RIGHT choice was made, or that the only other option was to let the terrorism go by without punishing anybody for it. There were lots of options available- some of the other posibilities would mean fewer Americans dead, some would mean more- but just because Kerry would not have gone into Iraq in that way doesn't mean he's for letting the terrorists go without punishment OR even that he would have let Saddam Hussien continue on with his bullshiting about weapons of mass destruction, just that Kerry would have done it a different way. That's what really gets me about the whole "flip flopping" lie on Iraq- one can be for eliminating Saddam Hussien without being for invading Iraq with too few men and too many American casualties; there were other options.
The better question to ask is why is that person homeless?
Usually due to housing costs in the area- you'd need three minimum wage jobs in Portland, OR just to maintain an apartment.
If you can show up to work on time and sober, you can get a job.
Unemployment Rate in Oregon is 7.5%- there are about 40,000 other clean, sober, and on time people competing with you for that job.
If you are willing to work hard, you can run your own business and make loads of money.
I don't know where you're from buddy- but around here unless you're a damned marketing genius, you can't break through the glass ceiling of people judgeing by appearances. Starting a business takes having some money to begin with.
I know lots of people who came to the USA with literally nothing but the shirt on their back, and even worse, owing tens of thousands of dollars to someone for smuggling them into the country, and not only did they pay off the debt, they own homes and cars and TVs and everything else, some of them are actually very wealthy. Many of these people are poorly educated (maybe 3rd or 5th grade level).
They had one thing over anybody born in America- the ability to work for less than minimum wage. I can't compete with them.
Even Warren Buffet comes from a modest background and got to where he is through hard work.
Sure- back in the 1950s when everybody had opportunity- there's none left for my generation.
There is so much opportunity in this country, the only excuse for homelessness is poor life choices. I see it every day where people came here with nothing and ended up just fine in the long run.
Only because people like you are bigoted against your own children, and refuse to hire Americans.
Actually- Beaverton, OR. 1/2 my income goes for my mortgage alone. Another 30% goes to state, local, and federal taxes. So that's 80% right off the top just to stay in the house and pay my taxes. In addition, I have a young child who has been refused for health insurance- so health care costs eat up another 15%. 5% left to live on.
According to Amnesty International- any pay less than $36,500/year is poverty level in the United States for a family of four, and I believe them after my last 3 years of trying to survive.
This has nothing to do with global warming- and almost everything to do with a weather phenomenon caused by reversal of currents in the Pacific. In an El Nino year- these sightings are quite common (tropical fish off the coast of Oregon and Washington, warm water species in the Gulf of Alaska, etc). It's easy to see why- a reversal of currents means instead of cold water coming south from the poles, warm water is headed north from the equator. (the other side of the big convection current is off the coast of Japan- where El Nino years mean you get different species of sushi on your plate).
Re:George Bush? Betrayer of the unborn?
on
The Nader Factor
·
· Score: 1
Listen closely to his abortion answer in the third debate- he won't nominate pro-life judges to SCOTUS. The Partial Birth Abortion Bill was accompanied by a welfare reform bill that basically gave poor women the choice between a $400 abortion and a $6000 birth (if you can call that choice- I call it being as for abortion as the Chinese communists). Add that to Larry Flynt's journalism that found an ex-girlfriend that Bush paid for an abortion for, as well as Jenna's recent abortion- the conclusion is obvious. W is just using the unborn to get elected- and to actually overturn RoeVWade would steal the thunder from the Republicans.
A few 10s of police facing 500 people (half protesting - half in support of the President), with the President staying in the area? You're damn right the cops are gonna be nervous. This has "Powder Keg" written all over it...
I'd agree with that- would you agree though that perhaps this President *deserves* such behavior for being such a prick?
Re:Nader has lost it
on
The Nader Factor
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
I'm the same as you- and yet I'll be voting for Kerry in the swing state of Oregon unless he's got greater than 10% in the polls whenever I get around to voting (ballot will probably be in the mail tomorrow- we don't use polling places in Oregon anymore). Because while Kerry would make a bad President- Bush would make a disasterous one, as already proven by his first four years in office. Nader could have said that- and I'd have given him a pass on it. Nader could have done like his replacement in the Green Pary, Cobb, and avoided campaigning in swing states. He didn't. And because of it, the Betrayer of the Unborn, the Betrayer of the Common Man, the Lapdog of the Saudi Royal Family, could well be in DC to cause us another 4 years of abject misery.
Mr. Nader repeated this week that he had no intention of leaving the race. He said no one from the Kerry campaign or Democratic National Committee was pressing him behind the scenes to quit, and he said he thought that Mr. Kerry would not make a good president anyway.
I guess that means Nader himself is pro-Bush- that he thinks 4 more years of W is better than Kerry. He's lost all of my respect at this point.
Slashdot Mirror
Not quite true- Nader isn't green this time around, and Cobb is supporting his local candidates (and Kerry BTW- which is why Cobb hasn't been campaigning in swing states). Here in Oregon we've got a number of Green state legislators, and the Green Party is supporting a bid to turn PGE into a PUD, instead of letting Texas Power buy it from Enron (and continue to siphon off $40,000 a year in tax money collected but not owed to the state, since the parent company is running PGE at a loss).
Errr... Nader isn't connected to the Green Party this election. He's the Reform Party candidate, IIRC. David Cobbs (who did a /. Q&A a while back) is the Green Party candidate.
Partially true- and depends on your state. In Oregon Nader's not even on the ballot- but if he was he'd have to be listed as an Independant.
UNLIKE the headline, this isn't necessarily about Nader or Cobb- while they are pushed in the 2nd "e-mail your friends", the general push of this petition is to let Kerry know that a large number of people voting for him have other agendas- like actually letting families survive, preserving the environment, rejecting corporate control over our lives and so on. I urge anybody who has ever supported a third party candidate in their lives and who doesn't support Bush to sign this petition- let's get a slashdot of signatures on this list!
Can the school shooters EVER achieve their goal without violence? I was never able to do so. And certainly the pain got to the point at times where I wished for an end to it- for some that end comes in suicide. I never did find a solution to it; even in adult society I am of the unclean and unwanted to some extent. It's why I became a computer programmer (only to recently have that, too, ripped away to the point that I could only find employment working for the State). And I don't believe for a second that the school shooters ARE simply narcissistic behavior. Oppression is oppression, no matter who is doing the oppressing and what system it is occuring under.
I agree that a certain percentage of Hamas no longer wants a seat at the negotiating table; their aim of a truly free democracy with separation of church and state in Palestine has been utterly frustrated. But they are NOT the only faction in PA, nor are they the only people in Palestine by any means.
Beyond all of that- I thank you for this disucssion, now I understand why neurotypical society can't deal with terrorism, and think these phenomena are separate. I didn't understand before- and yet even while disagreeing, I understand now.
Isn't that too broad of a definition to be meaningful ? It seems include armed robbery and extortion, for one thing. I don't think it's useful to relabel everything terrorism, just because someone might have been scared or intimidated.
I see no difference between the extortion of Hamas against the Israeli government and the extortion of a blackmailer against a politician he disagrees with- why do you?
Paypal's entire original profit structure was built on the float. They earned interest on your money recieved into a paypal account during the time it took to transfer that money to your checking account (which is why it takes 3-5 business days). Now that e-bay owns Paypal, they may be moving away from using it as a profit center and towards using it more as a service for auctioners and vendors.
That isn't enough to make school shootings "terrorism," since the perpetrators are not part of any organized attempt to change government policy (i.e. having a political agenda).
I would disagree with that one- I'd in fact call the current crop of anarchists in the Millenial Generation very organized at their terror.
While the Hamas bomber is alienated as well, they are part of an organization with a coherent political agenda which their attack supports, rather than a random act by a disaffected individual or two. That's a rather important difference because it has large implications for understanding why we get the behavior we see, and how we can go about changing it. You can't try to reduce organized political violence in the same way as individual and imitative violence by disaffected teens - it won't work.
Seems to me the real key is the same in both cases- give them a voice in the shape of their society. Giving Hamas a seat at the table negotiating the borders of Israel is the same as giving the disaffected teen a place in the high school society, and accomplishes the same goal, prevention of violence.
Calling Columbine, Santee, and so on acts of terrorism both confuses the issue of what terrorism really is and diminishes what those events really represent.
Ok, if not the cry for justice and a voice in the political process (which is what Coumbine, Santee, and so on were) what is it that the larger scale terrorist events really represent? If not for a political goal for an oppressed people who have no other voice, why resort to terrorism?
Rage against the system /= a political agenda. Considering them the same thing is analytically useless, since it conflates dissimilar activities under one category and muddies our ability to understand both forms of behavior. By the way, I've both been an outsider, and I study terrorism.
And yet you don't see the tendency for teachers supporting cliques to be a governmental system in oppression of some teenagers? They're not dissimilar activities at all- I can fully understand that a young Hamas member, with no job prospects, who feels cut off from functioning society blowing himself up on a bus is EXACTLY THE SAME EMOTIONAL CONTENT as Kip Kinkel killing his parents, several students, and asking to die. Not to realize this ignores a significant reason behind the terrorism- why the individual terrorists really do what they do. Like I said- I've actually BEEN there (though I've usually been a little more intelligent with my terrorism- a torched locker here- super geling powder in somebody's drink there; but I'm MUCH better now).
I guess you were never a hated outsider if you think that Coumbine and even Kip Kinkel in Springfield didn't have their political agendas.
Same with people going "Postal"- it's a rage against what is seen to the individual, however wrongly, as an oppressive system. Human beings don't kill people at random- it takes YEARS of oppressions to create these situations, and the high school shootings are EXACTLY the same problem as McVeigh, Hamas, and Al Qaeda- amall men who feel oppressed by the social situation that has disenfranchised them from the larger political process. Whether you're talking nations or cliques in a high school doesn't really matter- the primary motivation behind creating the terror IS politically based.
You don't think that the Columbine killings were about non-state actors (students who had been ostracized based on looks alone) targeting innocents (other students) as a part of their attempt to coerce a government over a political agenda (get the teachers/school board to get SERIOUS about anti-bullying programs)? I would have thought it was obvious- but only because many times during my school career I fantasized about doing exactly the same thing.
Terrorism only requires Terror. Hence the name. A single hostage, a hijacked airliner, a poisoned water supply, an assault case, all count as terrorism because they produce terror.
Now one can argue whether the INTENT was terrorism or not- but in most cases it is, even with the lone mugger who wants to scare you into handing over lunch money.
Voter Identification Numbers could be usefull here.
The point of the grandparent is that they weren't just "Peaceably" assembling- that this was in fact building up to a full scale riot. Given the way this campaign is going, I'd have a tendency to agree- and I think that President Bush himself deserves a lot of the blame for why that is so, since actually meeting with people that don't sign a loyalty oath does not seem to be a strategy in his campaign.
True enough- as far as it goes. Though I personally give China's lack of a reasonable minimum wage much more credit for their current boom, as well as their willingness to use slave labor.
I'd also point out that at no time since 1895 has a trickle down tax structure actually worked in the United States to produce economic growth for the lower classes.
Yep- that's just the way 60% of Germany voted Hitler into office (the Nazis got less than 40% of the vote- but still won the election because they had a plurality). And since I've just invoked Godwin's Law- that's my last word on the subject.
So how do you suppose it is some people can come to this country and survive on less than minimum wage, and not only survive, but thrive?
Actually, I don't see very many doing that even in the last 5 years. Most of them come here illegally, and end up dying here in the desert. The grand majority don't get rich in the first generation- very few even end up getting citizenship. I've seen this happen in the past- but not under the current cheap-labor, profit above humanity regime.
I'll tell you why: #1) they didn't stay at minimum wage for any length of time - skilled kitchen help at restaurants, for example, is worth a lot more than minimum wage. Sure, you start out as a bus boy, but once they've worked at all the jobs in the kitchen, you're worth quite a bit more. These people then go on to start their own restaurant, or work as a manager at an existing one.
Really? How many people who can't speak English do you know running restaurants? Heck- I never go to the restaurants that have busboys- but I applied for jobs at a few during my 26 months of unemployment.
#2) I'm hardly bigoted - I work for a minority owned firm and enjoy it, thank you very much, and my wife is an immigrant (legally so); indeed I'm probably far more tolerant than most people who go out of their way to loudly proclaim their tolerance and forcefully demand tolerance of others. I'm just quiet about it.
An American wasn't good enough for you to marry- isn't it interesting how the tolerance is all one way, towards tollerance of the immigrants- while the bigotry of the Congressional American Worker Replacement Program goes entirely unseen.
#4) the glass ceiling of people judgeing by appearances So we have a loud, visible tatoo, do we? *snicker*
Nope- just student loans on my credit report (mainly paid off- but they were at an American institution, and so as such, they count against me getting hired for minimum wage anywhere in the United States).
#5) Starting a business takes having some money to begin with. It's called loans. Try a bank. Or family, if you haven't alienated them all.
The family's not much better off than I am- and having my income cut to get a job means that I already have more loans than I can ever hope to repay- so like you said in your other missive- the banks won't lend if your income is decreasing. I'd almost be better off if I went bankrupt- but my pride and dignity says pay back what I owe, don't try to duck out like the upper class cowards with their limited liability corporations. This country provided people with a living at one time- it can again; it will just take a paradigm shift on the part of my generation. We've got to stop supporting parasites who just push paper, we've got to actually PRODUCE more than we CONSUME. My problems are MINOR compared with others- I at least have a roof over my head, I've found a niche in State Government (currently as a contractor- but that will likely be going permanent in the next 6 months!), if we just reduce our consumption a little more we can begin paying off our debt and eventually move into a smaller house. The Health Insurance situation can be taken care of by taking my kid to the Shriners and getting a pre-existing condition cleared up through charity (nothing genetic- he was just caught in the birth canal for 7 hours and was born with a clubbed foot- with physical therapy the most he'll need is a brace when he's two). I've got ways out- but having been shoved down once makes me want to correct this so that my kid doesn't have to grow up in a world where he's a second class citizen just for being born in Oregon.
Perhaps you should consider moving somewhere with a lower cost of living?
Considered it- but it would cost me $10,000 to do so at this time because land values have been dropping so fast in my area. (Yes, I know- conventional wisdom is that Real Estate always goes up- but when the major industry of an area is in a depression that ain't always true)
I'm frankly surprised your bank financed a home that is 50% of your income. It's rare they finance as much as a ratio of 40%.
It was 25% of my income when it was originally financed- the Bush/Clinton/Baby Boomer mismanagement of the current recession has resulted in a massive drop in income for me.
So now we're back to the issue of life choices. You don't have to live in Oregon, and you don't have to live in a house that expensive. You choose to do these things.
I choose these things because that's where I was born and that's where I have family- why should native 'gonies be destroyed so that the stock market can stay high? I really know the answer to that- because profit is God, and anybody saying any different is a blasphemer.
While you can't avoid all expenses (taxes and health care), you should address the things you can affect.
And as long as I owe $10,000 over the value of the house, there isn't any way I can affect that- other than to do what I can to end this insanity that is neo* economics.
Is there any possibility your wife could work? Even part time would no doubt help a lot.
She was- got laid off again at the begining of October (for the third time in as many years). Unlike what you seem to think- there's a major recession in the job market. We've both got college degrees, we've both always got good reviews from employers- but that's not enough any more if you're an American (on the other hand, if you're a Mexican, or Chinese, or Hindu, there are plenty of jobs here).
Also, if you don't already, check out Clark Howard! Not sure what station he'd be on out there, but if you can find him on the radio and spare some time to listen, he might give you some helpful ideas.
I listen to him- but he's still stuck in that Baby Boomer "If you just work hard you will get raises" lie- instead of what we've found for the past 5 years, which is if you work hard you'll get laid off and be unemployed for a minimum of 6 months (my unemployment last time lasted 26 months). Just can't trust private industry anymore here- at least, not enough to actually predict how much one should pay for a house or how long of a mortgage one can commit to. (I should have known- but nobody told me as I was working hard in school that the best I could ever do for a "permanent" position was 2 years and 2 months).
There is more to the world than Kerry==white && Bush==black
Or for that matter- Kerry==black && Bush==White. Completely agreed- but the choice is a vote between Bad and Worse, there's no chance at all of a third party making it.
Still- I hold out hope- got my ballot but haven't filled it out yet- I still may yet be voting for Peroutka.
Pick one. Regardless of which one you pick, there will have been many other options. Bush picked this one, rightly or wrongly. In an alternate universe, he picked Iran - and you are still complaining there were other choices.
Absolutely true- Just wanted to clarify- Iraq was not the only choice for fighting the war on terror; not going to Iraq does not AUTOMATICALLY mean that the terrorists get away without any punishment at all.
You can only make one choice at a time - and the fact that there are other options merely is evidence that a choice was made, not that the wrong choice was made.
Nor does it automatically mean that the RIGHT choice was made, or that the only other option was to let the terrorism go by without punishing anybody for it. There were lots of options available- some of the other posibilities would mean fewer Americans dead, some would mean more- but just because Kerry would not have gone into Iraq in that way doesn't mean he's for letting the terrorists go without punishment OR even that he would have let Saddam Hussien continue on with his bullshiting about weapons of mass destruction, just that Kerry would have done it a different way. That's what really gets me about the whole "flip flopping" lie on Iraq- one can be for eliminating Saddam Hussien without being for invading Iraq with too few men and too many American casualties; there were other options.
The better question to ask is why is that person homeless?
Usually due to housing costs in the area- you'd need three minimum wage jobs in Portland, OR just to maintain an apartment.
If you can show up to work on time and sober, you can get a job.
Unemployment Rate in Oregon is 7.5%- there are about 40,000 other clean, sober, and on time people competing with you for that job.
If you are willing to work hard, you can run your own business and make loads of money.
I don't know where you're from buddy- but around here unless you're a damned marketing genius, you can't break through the glass ceiling of people judgeing by appearances. Starting a business takes having some money to begin with.
I know lots of people who came to the USA with literally nothing but the shirt on their back, and even worse, owing tens of thousands of dollars to someone for smuggling them into the country, and not only did they pay off the debt, they own homes and cars and TVs and everything else, some of them are actually very wealthy. Many of these people are poorly educated (maybe 3rd or 5th grade level).
They had one thing over anybody born in America- the ability to work for less than minimum wage. I can't compete with them.
Even Warren Buffet comes from a modest background and got to where he is through hard work.
Sure- back in the 1950s when everybody had opportunity- there's none left for my generation.
There is so much opportunity in this country, the only excuse for homelessness is poor life choices. I see it every day where people came here with nothing and ended up just fine in the long run.
Only because people like you are bigoted against your own children, and refuse to hire Americans.
Actually- Beaverton, OR. 1/2 my income goes for my mortgage alone. Another 30% goes to state, local, and federal taxes. So that's 80% right off the top just to stay in the house and pay my taxes. In addition, I have a young child who has been refused for health insurance- so health care costs eat up another 15%. 5% left to live on.
According to Amnesty International- any pay less than $36,500/year is poverty level in the United States for a family of four, and I believe them after my last 3 years of trying to survive.
This has nothing to do with global warming- and almost everything to do with a weather phenomenon caused by reversal of currents in the Pacific. In an El Nino year- these sightings are quite common (tropical fish off the coast of Oregon and Washington, warm water species in the Gulf of Alaska, etc). It's easy to see why- a reversal of currents means instead of cold water coming south from the poles, warm water is headed north from the equator. (the other side of the big convection current is off the coast of Japan- where El Nino years mean you get different species of sushi on your plate).
Listen closely to his abortion answer in the third debate- he won't nominate pro-life judges to SCOTUS. The Partial Birth Abortion Bill was accompanied by a welfare reform bill that basically gave poor women the choice between a $400 abortion and a $6000 birth (if you can call that choice- I call it being as for abortion as the Chinese communists). Add that to Larry Flynt's journalism that found an ex-girlfriend that Bush paid for an abortion for, as well as Jenna's recent abortion- the conclusion is obvious. W is just using the unborn to get elected- and to actually overturn RoeVWade would steal the thunder from the Republicans.
A few 10s of police facing 500 people (half protesting - half in support of the President), with the President staying in the area? You're damn right the cops are gonna be nervous. This has "Powder Keg" written all over it...
I'd agree with that- would you agree though that perhaps this President *deserves* such behavior for being such a prick?
I'm the same as you- and yet I'll be voting for Kerry in the swing state of Oregon unless he's got greater than 10% in the polls whenever I get around to voting (ballot will probably be in the mail tomorrow- we don't use polling places in Oregon anymore). Because while Kerry would make a bad President- Bush would make a disasterous one, as already proven by his first four years in office. Nader could have said that- and I'd have given him a pass on it. Nader could have done like his replacement in the Green Pary, Cobb, and avoided campaigning in swing states. He didn't. And because of it, the Betrayer of the Unborn, the Betrayer of the Common Man, the Lapdog of the Saudi Royal Family, could well be in DC to cause us another 4 years of abject misery.
Mr. Nader repeated this week that he had no intention of leaving the race. He said no one from the Kerry campaign or Democratic National Committee was pressing him behind the scenes to quit, and he said he thought that Mr. Kerry would not make a good president anyway.
I guess that means Nader himself is pro-Bush- that he thinks 4 more years of W is better than Kerry. He's lost all of my respect at this point.