It's now abundantly clear that many of the suspicions that people had regarding laissez faire, deregulated, free market policies applied by years and years of our elected representatives does not work. Such approaches have caused disastrous problems in many different areas. The current financial crisis shows what happens when elected lawmakers pander to voters with favorable legislation in order to be re-elected and greed in the business community is allowed to run rampant.

The results in other areas are similar...global warming and its effect on our environment is incontrovertible; our healthcare system leaves a greater proportion of Americans without healthcare than any other developed country; standardized tests show our children's education badly lagging other developed countries; our "business friendly" trade policies have basically eliminated our manufacturing capabilities; our government has been irresponsibly negligent in addressing any policies which will reverse our dramatically increasing reliance on foreign oil; greed among our citizens followed by spending by our lawmakers has resulted in America becoming the world's largest debtor nation with no end in sight; Social Security will be bankrupt in a few years and no action has been taken by elected leaders; our country's disastrous foreign policy has resulted from the inattention of both citizens and the representatives, ceding almost total control of foreign affairs to an idealogue President.

Where does this end? Our local representative in the House of Representatives is a good example. She was the wife of a state trooper who made their living running a donut franchise before her election to the U.S. Congress. Now she gets contributions to her "campaign fund" exceeding a half million dollars. I'd estimate that's a multiple of her family's annual income at any time in her life. Her voting record shows that she votes as she's told by her party leaders. Does she somehow favor her contributors? That would take somewhat more study but I'd be surprised if my guess wasn't confirmed.

I really think we ought to consider which of the candidates who we will elect in November are more likely to begin to act in the common good of the U.S., representing their political objectives, but in the end cooperating with political adversaries in the interest of the greater good. They'll have to do that quickly because many of the problems I've cited have been "simmering" for awhile and can't wait for a lot longer before they will explode like the current financial crisis.

I know who I'm going to vote for. The reason that I've taken the few minutes to write this is to implore fellow citizens to expand their considerations beyond the nastiness and character assasinations, which campaign managers are advising the candidates are more effective in motivating the undecideds among the electorate, to think seriously about which of those candidates that we can vote for will be more likely to effectively address the serious problems confronting our nation.

If we refuse to do that, we will deserve the effects such continued inattention will have on our lives and those of our children and future generations of Americans.

Very well said. Once and fore all I hope that this is the end of Trickle Down Economics.

I agree with everyone!

We have many problems with our world, but we also have a lot to be thankful for.

Kahuna, as usual, your words are thought provoking. Thanks.

And I don't understand why that passage Diskman posted needs to be attributed to a comedian, be it Leno or Letterman. And having snopes say they didn't say it - well, most of it still rings true even if it it was Diskman that said it.

The two posts on Ginny Brown-Waite are replete with contrived subtle negative references and a touch of elitism.

She was the wife of a state trooper who made their living running a donut franchise. That's a bit disingenuous. They owned the franchise. They were hard working, good business people, provided employment opportunities and didn't drive the economy into recession like our educated, enlightened, elitists in Washington did.

Speaking of education, another post cited the education of her opponent in somewhat glowing terms. What was selectively exempted was Ginny Brown-Waite's educational background. Ginny is a native of Albany, New York and an alumna of The State College System. She received her Master’s Degree in Public Administration from Russell Sage College and holds a Labor Studies Program Certification from Cornell University.

More elitism, Now she gets contributions to her "campaign fund" exceeding a half million dollars. I'd estimate that's a multiple of her family's annual income at any time in her life. What does this mean? What is the insinuation? Is it a snipe at her W-2 earning level? Since when is one's income a consideration for office? Let's do some research on Barney Frank and Chris Dodd or even Obama as Senator to see what the multiple is. I don't understand the point unless its to belittle what we speculate her income might be.

Her voting record shows that she votes as she's told by her party leaders. I'd like to see that backed up with fact.

Brown-Waite is a professed conservative republican, contrary to your assertion, I would suspect that she would line up with republicans against the bailout and for more oversight in the Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac hearings a few years back when Congressional liberal democrats were opening the floodgates and blocking reform. If you have information to the contrary, I'm sure you will let me know.

I don't have a horse in this race. I don't even know the candidates. I would just like to see fair play and not the cleverly veiled or at best unintentional, undermining of a candidate. If you feel strongly about a candidate, fine, that's great, say so clearly, up front. Make the case for your candidate by all means. I respect that. I would just like to see an even playing field. I may or may not vote for her based on other considerations. It wouldn't be because she is not an elitist intellectual, wealthy or Ivy league graduate.

A partisan but informative link.... http://brown-waite.house.gov/Biography/

Kahuna....it would appear that Ginny Brown-Waite did in fact oppose the bailout as I suspected. In her own words.....

http://brown-waite.house.gov/News/Do...umentID=104518

I had missed her explanation. Several paragraphs of ranting against the political opposition before concluding that she wouldn't vote for even the revised bill. Fortunately, Congresswoman Brown-Waite was in the minority. Action by the Congress was already too late to avoid permitting the worldwide credit markets from freezing up completely. Think of the vast amounts of money that inaction has cost all of us. And the pain it will cause people who lose their jobs, their homes, and their very lifestyle. That alone justifies sending Ginny Brown-Waite back to her donut shop to make a living the hard way.

"justifies sending Ginny Brown-Waite back to her donut shop to make a living the hard way"

__________________________________________________ ___________________

"to implore fellow citizens to expand their considerations beyond the nastiness and character assasinations,"



Which is it ???

Kahuna: I agree with you in some items; however, what is the choice?? Progressive Socialism, Redistribution of income, clear path to communism. I know the consecuences because I suffered myself.
There is a clear cut solution: TERM LIMITS. Simple and powerful, let those politicians dont hang to power indefinetely. We can take a bad politician for 8years; but for a whole generation???? Come on, this is not a Kingdom, this country does not belong to them, even when they believe so. Since they will never introduce term limits legislation, we should try to ammend the constitution to make it applied to everyone in government, not only to the presidency.

You can impose your own term limits. Vote for the non-incumbents in the next election.

Good, honest response Kahuna. However, your statement about her ranting against the opposition is not quite entirely accurate. Her statement clearly says that she sided with Senator Bill Nelson a democrat in voting against the bill. Further, by virtue of that vote, whether you agree or disagree, it would seem to dispute your question that she might be in the tank for her contributors. Incidentally, some great economists and the majority of the public agree with her position.

Now that we have traded missiles, I have a serious question for you in the hopes that your expertise will help me conclude that the bailout was really the best course of action. I understand the basics but I am sincerely interested in your professional analysis, pro bono of course, on Brown-Waite's explanation of her vote on the first rescue bill. In particular, what do think of the source Brown-Waite described as "the finest economic minds in the country." This is not a gotcha question. I am sure others, especially those that do not have professional financial or economic backgrounds would appreciate your input and the viewpoint of anyone else who would like to weigh in. Personally, I am not convinced the rescue/bailout was in the country's interest on a long term basis but, I have kept an open mind. As always, thank you for stimulating the grey matter.

http://brown-waite.house.gov/News/Do...umentID=104133

BTW For the record, if you were running to represent our district, I would cast my vote for you even though we do not always share the same perspective.

Of course there were differing opinions on the potential effectiveness of the bailout proposal, in its original and revised form. But they tended to come from people who criticized the plan but could offer nothing better, or those that simply couldn't get over the need for some retribution against those being accused of causing the crisis. These were people with points-of-view that didn't add to the discourse on potential solutions.

My argument is that a NO vote at the time was grossly inappropriate given what was happening in the world financial markets. No one can be certain that the markets, particularly the credit markets, would have calmed down even if the bailout proposal had passed immediately after its initial proposal. But one thing is certain-- the almost week long delay between the failure of AIG, Fannie, Freddie, Lehman and Bear Stearns and any meaningful response by the U.S. government resulted the widening and heightened panic in the credit markets. We've now all begun to understand the effect as the absence of credit ripples through the world economies. More experienced people, economists and bankers, knew exactly what was going to happen if nothing was done quickly.

Like most people, I hated the idea that those that played a big part in causing the problem would benefit from the bailout. That is an awful element of the program. But if the credit markets were to have been soothed by strong support from a major government, a YES vote to the best program that could be quickly negotiated between the various political and idealogical factions was what was required. After all the debating and negotiation, the politicians should have swallowed hard and done what was best for the common good.

To me, the NO votes by Ginny Brown-Waite and Bill Nelson among all the others, was the height of irresponsibility in the face of the crisis we were facing. Now we've seen and we're experiencing the results of the political bickering and delay of a response. It has cost all of us a lot of money, it's cost our government a huge amount of prestige and influence, it's done long-term damage to world economies, it's caused serious doubt to arise regarding our idealogy of capitalism, and the effects will be more long-lasting than many expect.

Those that voted NO chose to do nothing to resolve the financial crisis we were facing. I'd equate it to a military commander whose unit was under mortal attack who couldn't decide among several imperfect defensive tactics, and decided to simply stand by and do nothing, permitting those he was responsible for to be injured or killed.

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

Those that voted NO chose to do nothing to resolve the financial crisis we were facing. I'd equate it to a military commander whose unit was under mortal attack who couldn't decide among several imperfect defensive tactics, and decided to simply stand by and do nothing, permitting those he was responsible for to be injured or killed.

You and many others look at the "bailout" proposal as a knee-jerk reaction to the perceived crisis. So many have commented that while they certainly don't know if the bill is the best solution, or even an adequate answer to the problem, it is imperative that SOMETHING MUST BE DONE!

First, lets look at your analogy of the military commander. As you said, there appear to be "several imperfect defensive tactics" which the commander rejects. You state that he "decided to simply stand by and do nothing, permitting those he was responsible for to be injured or killed." Not necessarily the whole story. A good commander will look at the big pictures and consider the impact of his decisions on that picture. Possibly the defensive tactics currently available would, in the longer run, be more damaging. Sometimes, the only military solution is to shun seemingly more beneficial tactics, hold your ground, and possibly suffer complete defeat in the short run in order to triumph in the bigger picture. Of course, the Alamo leaps forward as an example, but history is replete with instances where military units took the hard choice, who rejected a possible alternative that might make their position more tenable but would not address the root problem.

A second group of objectors could be described as the Hippocratc Oath believers --- though the source of this adage is not the Oath These people believe that in any action, the primary principle should be "first do no harm." Naturally politics is often more pragmatic than philosophy, and often one must eat a little dirt. On this issue, many decided that the dirt far outweighed any benefit.

Well said. What are our options. to Ginny?