Quite possibly the best thing I've read, ever

[Lenie]

on this, or any, site:

The proposed financial bailout (which hasn’t been passed at the time of this writing) is in my opinion a patently stupid idea. I’ve been pleasantly surprised to see that so many people are expressing opposition to it. I’m not sure it will be enough to help though because presently the U.S. government seems to have quite a strong capacity for putting short-term thinking ahead of long-term thinking. Unfortunately, it seems that the reason the bailout failed to pass the first time is largely because members of Congress were thinking even more short-term than usual.

In my opinion it’s best to let some companies crash and burn, even if it creates negative consequences for all of us. It’s better to deal with it now than to put it off to be dealt with another day. A company that bases its operations on something that doesn’t create sustainable value for people might as well crash and burn. It will be best for their employees and stakeholders to find more conscious, fulfilling work anyway. It’s too bad our leaders are such short-term thinkers. Pouring more money into operations that don’t create much value to begin with is a short-term fix that will only lead to a bigger crash later.
and...
Who am I voting for in the next election? No one. I’m not even registered to vote — never have been. Does this make me a bad U.S. citizen? Perhaps. I see myself more as a citizen of the world. My loyalties are with humanity at large, not some political entity.

Voting as an individual in the USA seems rather pointless to me at this time, especially given our current political climate. Instead of voting as an individual, I could vote with my blog by endorsing a particular candidate. But I honestly don’t resonate with either Obama or McCain. If forced to choose between them, I’d say that Obama is the more conscious of the two. However, personally I’d much prefer Dennis Kucinich because he seems much more conscious and aware. He’s also a fellow vegan who believes that all life is sacred, so of course that’s a big plus in my book. He’s done some gutsy but unpopular things, and I really respect that about him. Unfortunately people like him are still a minority in Congress.

I don’t expect any political leader to be perfect, but I’d like to see something much more conscious than our current levels. I actually feel that’s an achievable goal.

I do have a vote to cast, but not in the upcoming political election. My vote is for a more conscious humanity. I have to vote with my conscience, and that requires that I cast my vote through my work, not at the ballot box.

wow. Love it.

[Still Growing]

How about a bailout of financial dollars from gov't directly to the public banks where the defaults are happening?

Why does the money need to be laundered via the private Fed with 6% premium and then given to private banks like JP Morgan?

How about the public banks paying 6% interest to the tax payer as a future tax credit?

Am I making too much since here?

Having a bailout is not the biggest problem, its the manner in which they are being done thats the worst.

[sheffy4]

That's so funny because I was immediately put off by this post.
I recognize that Steve's "citizen of the world" beliefs fit his version of reality perfectly, but in my reality, not voting just because neither candidate is the One seems atrocious!
I'm sad to see that someone with such a high vibration is choosing not to vote, though I guess Steve has a point in that he can "vote" by endorsing if he wanted to, and he does a lot of good for the public in many other ways.
I just get afraid that the voting public is mostly made of the under-informed, prejudiced people, while the intelligent, peace-minded people sit quietly on the sidelines. This just doesn't seem right. And it's scary!

[Brutha]

I'm sad to see that someone with such a high vibration is choosing not to vote, though I guess Steve has a point in that he can "vote" by endorsing if he wanted to, and he does a lot of good for the public in many other ways.

I can completly understand Steve for that decision.
At the same time I don't want to defend it because I don't want to convince other people to not vote.

There however some thing that only apply to Steve.

In general you should also see that Steve self image would change at the point where he would declare on his website that he is pro Obama and maybe place a Obama 08 banner somewhere.
Steve is no person who would vote and keep his decision secret or who would vote and doesn't really go with it.
If Steve does something he really commits to that course.

[Eric Revelin]

Originally Posted by sheffy4

That's so funny because I was immediately put off by this post.
I recognize that Steve's "citizen of the world" beliefs fit his version of reality perfectly, but in my reality, not voting just because neither candidate is the One seems atrocious!

How so? If you don't support either candidate you're voting for the lesser of two evils, which only feeds a flawed system one way or the other. The corrupt thrive when people agree to play by their rules.

Myself, I'm voting for a third party candidate. I highly doubt that Nader will win but it's the closest thing to a no-confidence vote that we've got.

[wachusettgirl]

The goverment "bailout" which would be much better characterized as a loan, is not something that is guaranteed to fail. Most of the most brilliant economic minds in the world are recommending that this is what must be done, and that it will work. I chose to defer to their judgement and have some faith.
When an economy goes into a deep recession and collapses, make no mistake that it is the poorest that suffer the most. You can play the blame game and believe that companies folding will only punish the rich, or you can get behind a plan that is a very viable attempt at a solution to improving our economy. Ok, the banking crises was caused by speculation on Wall Street, and an indulgent disregard for common sense, but it is far more complicated than that, and is a result of living in a free capitalistic society. Interest rates have been so low, and we are living in a time when home-ownership is considered an entitlement rather than a priviledge. Banks have been fearful of turning down anyone due to laws and repercussions, and many Americans have gotten caught up in living way above their means. Yes, there is a need for tighter regulations, but do any of us want to live in a place where nobody can get a loan for anything?
As for not voting, that is certainly one's own personal choice. My opinion is that it's lame because on both tickets we have extraordinary individuals with amazing life stories, educations and credentials, along with complete devotion to public service. Sure they have different ideologies, but I really feel that either of them is qualified to lead. It's also pretty cool that either way a black or a woman will be in high office for the first time in U.S. history, and I'm thrilled and honored to take part in it.

[Still Growing]

We are all brainwashed into thinking that if you don't vote its a very bad thing. The two most common arguments for voting are:
1. People died for your right to vote. (Yes but they also died for your right to choose. Am I wrong?)
2. If you don't your voice won't be represented. (By not voting you are helping to build a case for a 3 or more party system right?)

What do you think?

[wachusettgirl]

Originally Posted by Still Growing

1. People died for your right to vote. (Yes but they also died for your right to choose. Am I wrong?)
2. If you don't your voice won't be represented. (By not voting you are helping to build a case for a 3 or more party system right?)

Yes, I definately agree that people have fought and died for our right to vote and our right to choose. I don't however agree that not voting somehow builds a case for a multi-party system. Not voting does absolutely nothing. There have been many third party candidates that have increased awareness about one issue or another ( i.e. John Hagelin is a brilliant quantum scientist who ran for the presidency twice, and brought forth awareness to his beliefs on world peace), but I personally have little tolerance for anyone begging off voting altogether because they claim that nobody "resonates", or in other words is good enough.

[Parthon]

I can see where he's coming from though. I live in a country where voting is compulsory, and I almost didn't vote in the recent election. I was almost willing to face the $100 fine, but I didn't want to waste an entire day working to give the government some money.

I'm lucky that we have a preferential system, I got to vote for my favoured party, and still have my vote count towards one of the two leading parties, when/if the person I voted for lost.

I would have prefered not to vote though, given a choice between the bad and the ugly, there's not really a choice at all. I'd rather reserve my right to vote and make my voice heard in more powerful ways.

[jimbos123456]

The goverment "bailout" which would be much better characterized as a loan, is not something that is guaranteed to fail. Most of the most brilliant economic minds in the world are recommending that this is what must be done, and that it will work.I chose to defer to their judgement and have some faith.

I disagree that they are the most brilliant economic minds in the world. The austrian school of economic thought predicted this would happen years in advance. In fact those that are successful investors tend to be contrarians from the austrian school of thought. No one in government ever tends to listen to that school of thought, because it's members for the most part oppose corruption, and are not easily bought. On the other hand the economic advisors for the democrats and republicans tend to be all keynesian, or from the chicogo school of economic thought. The keynesian school of thought, and chicogo school of thought all advocate federal reserve loose money policies which caused the whole mess in the first place. Unfortunately we no longer have the right to vote in this country in 2000/2004 it looks like the republicans did rig the vote. However there are signs of the democratic voting fraud in this current election too especially with hillary during the democratic nomination, and paul during the republican nomination. Voting does indeed seem pointless for me now I'm going to stay home. We are always going to be forced into the lesser of two evils, and when you don't vote for an evil the vote isn't counted anyway with the voting fraud. I mine as well save some gas money instead of wasting time driving down there when my vote isn't counted anyway due to the fraud.

[Winter]

Originally Posted by wachusettgirl

Yes, I definately agree that people have fought and died for our right to vote and our right to choose. I don't however agree that not voting somehow builds a case for a multi-party system. Not voting does absolutely nothing. There have been many third party candidates that have increased awareness about one issue or another ( i.e. John Hagelin is a brilliant quantum scientist who ran for the presidency twice, and brought forth awareness to his beliefs on world peace), but I personally have little tolerance for anyone begging off voting altogether because they claim that nobody "resonates", or in other words is good enough.

Quite so.

We must guard against thinking that we are so spiritually or intellectually hoity-toity that we have evolved beyond voting.

Winter

[Brutha]

When an economy goes into a deep recession and collapses, make no mistake that it is the poorest that suffer the most. You can play the blame game and believe that companies folding will only punish the rich, or you can get behind a plan that is a very viable attempt at a solution to improving our economy.

I think most people here who oppose the bill are aware that a recession isn't nice.

It's however much better than a hyperinflation that could result from simply printing 700 billion and throwing it into Wall Street.

In addition the plan doesn't address the underlying problems at all.

The goverment "bailout" which would be much better characterized as a loan,

If they would have wanted to give banks a loan they would have done so. On the other hand they want to buy derivates (toxic waste).

There should be a process with hearning of different economist and discussion of different plans to resque the economy.

On the other hand the economic advisors for the democrats and republicans tend to be all keynesian, or from the chicogo school of economic thought.

Most Republican advisors are supply siders and not chicago or keynesian.

[Parthon]

If the foundation of the decision was from a base of power and truth, then I wouldn't have a problem with it. If it were aligned with really creating a new future where such a collapse isn't likely to happen again, I would be all for it.

The problem is that the decision comes from a fear of the crash, and it does feel like a desperate attempt to run away from problems and troubles. Unfortunately this kind of fear based thinking is just going to lead into more problems unless someone who is more conscious steps up and can lead the others into a more long term solution.

I don't oppose the bill directly, I oppose the level of thinking behind it.

[Still Growing]

Originally Posted by wachusettgirl

Yes, I definately agree that people have fought and died for our right to vote and our right to choose. I don't however agree that not voting somehow builds a case for a multi-party system. Not voting does absolutely nothing. There have been many third party candidates that have increased awareness about one issue or another ( i.e. John Hagelin is a brilliant quantum scientist who ran for the presidency twice, and brought forth awareness to his beliefs on world peace), but I personally have little tolerance for anyone begging off voting altogether because they claim that nobody "resonates", or in other words is good enough.

So if you were attempting to start a third party and seeking financing you don't think being able to prove that the voters were discontent with the two party system would give adequate evidence?


How about a vote of "none of the above"?

[wachusettgirl]

Originally Posted by Still Growing

So if you were attempting to start a third party and seeking financing you don't think being able to prove that the voters were discontent with the two party system would give adequate evidence?


How about a vote of "none of the above"?

Nope. Not voting doesn't tell me anything at all. In fact the prevailing assumption would be apathy.

[Lenie]

Originally Posted by wachusettgirl

The goverment "bailout" which would be much better characterized as a loan, is not something that is guaranteed to fail. Most of the most brilliant economic minds in the world are recommending that this is what must be done, and that it will work. I chose to defer to their judgement and have some faith.
When an economy goes into a deep recession and collapses, make no mistake that it is the poorest that suffer the most. You can play the blame game and believe that companies folding will only punish the rich, or you can get behind a plan that is a very viable attempt at a solution to improving our economy. Ok, the banking crises was caused by speculation on Wall Street, and an indulgent disregard for common sense, but it is far more complicated than that, and is a result of living in a free capitalistic society. Interest rates have been so low, and we are living in a time when home-ownership is considered an entitlement rather than a priviledge. Banks have been fearful of turning down anyone due to laws and repercussions, and many Americans have gotten caught up in living way above their means. Yes, there is a need for tighter regulations, but do any of us want to live in a place where nobody can get a loan for anything?
As for not voting, that is certainly one's own personal choice. My opinion is that it's lame because on both tickets we have extraordinary individuals with amazing life stories, educations and credentials, along with complete devotion to public service. Sure they have different ideologies, but I really feel that either of them is qualified to lead. It's also pretty cool that either way a black or a woman will be in high office for the first time in U.S. history, and I'm thrilled and honored to take part in it.

nicely done.

[Eric Revelin]

Originally Posted by wachusettgirl

Nope. Not voting doesn't tell me anything at all. In fact the prevailing assumption would be apathy.

People don't need to vote to make their voice heard, but they need to do something. Apathy isn't a problem; most people aren't truly apathetic. They just don't think they can accomplish anything so they lack the motivation to try.

If you look at the current system, I understand where that sentiment comes from. I plan to vote for Ralph Nader not because I think he can win (The corporations own our government. An anti-corporate power candidate doesn't have a chance in hell barring a miracle/mass awakening.) but because he's a symbol what I want as a citizen. My vote will be ignored, but for me it's a way of taking a step up and saying, "I'm not going to stand for the same things my parents did; I have some self-respect."

If that were to be the end of my efforts than I wouldn't begin at all. We need demonstrations, we need protests, we need community leaders who will stand up and demand change whether or not there's an election going on. Voting only matters when people stay in the process and never let their representatives rest on their laurels. We haven't seen a lot of that, and it seems very intimidating since the average person has no idea where to begin. However, if movements like Ron Paul's Campaign for Liberty gain momentum, the political landscape of this country is going to undergo drastic changes.

[Lenie]

Good answer, Eric.