2012 conventions 2012 election 2013 session 2013 special election arts arts and culture author ballot measures basketball bomb books boy scouts budget bullying business charlie hales children clackamas climate change coal college courts crime culture culture club democrats drugs economy education environment family film fluoride food gay rights guns handguns health health care health insurance high school history housing immigration internet kitzhaber law legislature lgbt literary arts living marijuana marriage media medicine mental health military minor parties mohamed mohamud movies music native americans news newspaper obama olympics oregon our town parenting pers photography police politcs politics port portland portland business journal president prevention public safety religion republicans rnc romney rural salem sam adams sandy hook schools science shooting sports suicide supreme court taxes technology television terrorism theater third parties transportation union university of oregon washington wildfire women

I can attribute much of the current "surprise" about the financial results of the TARP/bank bailout program to the sense that the initial $700 Billion was a gift or grant to banks, when it was in reality a loan, or at least preferred stock purchased by the Federal government.  The term "bailout" was slapped onto the program very early in the discussion and I think the public perceived the government as being much more financially generous that it actually was.

It's important to differentiate between "TARP funds" which were basically loans, and "stimulus funds" which are outright goverment spending.

While the incursion of goverment into financial markets and the economy in the last year was very significant and broad, the confusion between "gifts" and "loans" only made it seem more drastic than it really was.

posted 3 years, 5 months ago
view in context

Regarding "change" in general, I would recommend Alvin Toffler's Future Shock, a very relevant early 1970's book about the increasing pace of change in our society. His basic thesis is we will have to deal more and more change at a more rapid rate, primarily due to technological advances, which impacts many aspects of daily life. How well we embrace, manage and control change affects our quality of life.
As the "change treadmill" keeps turning faster and faster and we run harder just to keep up, we come to expect a certain level change and if it doesn't happen, something seems to be wrong.
Given this subtle expectation, I hope who we vote for is not solely based on the ability to promise "change" but instead a deeper discussion of the underlying issues.

posted 4 years, 6 months ago
view in context