2012 conventions 2012 election 2013 session 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

Of all the arguments for the bill, I find disturbing, the lack of any comment about still allowing credit checks on a subset of potential employees.  If the checks are potentially harmful or negative in any way for one group, how does that not also apply to everyone?  The article suggests that the proposed law will not cover those "applying to work in a bank or law enforcement", such that they "would still be subject to a credit check, but retail, food service and many other types of employers would be restricted from considering an applicant's credit history."  If the credit worthiness of an individual is not valid or could potentially improperly prevent a worthwhile individual from getting a job, then that is true irrespective of the role for which they are applying.  How is the credit worthiness any more valid for the persons applying as police officers or bank tellers, than for the persons running the registers in a retail store?

If such a law is being contemplated, the lawmakers should be doing the correct thing, and make the rules apply equally to all employers doing hiring and apply equally to all applicants irrespective of the job or job title.

posted 3 years, 3 months ago
view in context

  So the "point" is that other taxpayers should be happy about their subsidy to you and the prior poster with its "me too" replies; all conveying their message about how "I could afford to and chose to buy now, so the credit\subsidy was just a bonus"?  The person who could not buy and receive the subsidy for whatever reason loses out twice, and those who could buy under the rules benefit doubly.

  The "round 2" is a claim that others "benefit" because potential future activities on the purchased home will possibly stimulate the economy?  Wow! How generous that rationalization is.  No matter how one chooses to rationalize their benefiting, the credits are just unfairly distributed and unjustified windfalls to some (and probably mostly undeserving) groups; i.e. to those who could already afford to buy a home at this time.

posted 3 years, 7 months ago
view in context

  No plan with such restrictions will be generally beneficial (or thusly, fair).  There should be either almost _no restrictions_ as to who can get one (perhaps just every # years).  However much *better* would be to remove all such incentives which are just another way for the government to "pick the winners" in the same way they chose which businesses to "bail out".

  Why should the senior citizen or unemployed person be punished for their situation which is preventing them from participating?  Why reward those who happened to be about ready to buy, such that they are receiving the double benefits from lower prices in the depressed market plus the incentive?

  Without any incentives, there certainly would be no need to waste time nor money on some "comprehensive business study." That is yet another benefit which could be achieved by eliminating the incentives.

posted 3 years, 7 months ago
view in context