Oregon Public Broadcasting

1st congressional district 2012 election 2012 session agriculture art arts author beer births books budget business central oregon college congress crime culture death penalty eastern oregon economy education employment energy environment eugene fishing food gangs gay rights health health care high school history homeless housing jobs law legislature literature living media mental health military movies music native americans obama occupy portland occupy wall street onthejob oregon our town outdoors parenting police politics portland portland business journal portland mayor pregnancy prison public health race rebroadcast recess recession religion republicans rural schools science shooting sports supreme court talking business technology teen theater unemployment union university of oregon washington water weekend women youth

Tom, that is neither a fair nor an accurate representation of free market conservatives or the cause of this economy.

The housing crises was not caused by "de-regulation." It was caused by BAD regulations that created perverse incentives that have been crafted slowly by a highly lobbied legislature.

posted 2 years, 10 months ago
view in context

Their "fair share"? I don't understand this kind of thinking. I am not entitled to anyone else's money but my own. I do not make anywhere close to enough money to be affected by the tax hikes on the "rich," but nor do I feel entitled to their income.

We spend more than $10,000 per child per year in public schools, that is much more expensive than the average private school tuition in Oregon. So how is spending more going to fix schools? Washington DC spends even more than we do (around $15,000 per year per child) and they have some of the worst schools out there.

posted 2 years, 10 months ago
view in context

That would be unfair to poor people who cannot afford hybrid cars. It would be a regressive tax. Repeated studies have shown that access to a car makes a HUGE difference for the earning potential and ability to hold a job for low-income workers.

posted 2 years, 10 months ago
view in context

The devil also quoted scripture to Jesus in Matthew 4, twisting it to try and tempt Jesus.

To be clear, the poor woman was giving money to support the operation of the temple (that is, the church), not the government (which was run by Romans at that time, not the Jews).

A forced gift is not a gift. Forced charity (via the invasive arm of the state) is not charity. Notice that the poor woman did not take someone else's money to give to the temple. Rather, she took responsibility for her own conscience, and gave what she could. 

Forcing your neighbor to fund what you personally feel is right, does nothing to alleviate your own responsibility, and simulatenously robs your neighbor of her own freedom to follow her conscience with those earnings.

posted 2 years, 11 months ago
view in context