difficult

One of the hardest parts about today was telling my son that his pop-pop was dead. Broke my heart.

more on dad

probable cause of death was heart attack because of position of body.

Again, I ask a question to the void. . .

Would it not be better to "bail" out homeowners instead of the banks? Since Washington is going to use taxes for it anyway, why not payoff some or all mortgages (of primary residences) - pay them to the banks on behalf of the homeowners. The banks get their money, the homeowners don't have the monthly mortgage payment sucking all of their income, the government shows how powerful yet "benign" it really is. Everybody wins - except renters, those with no mortgage, the homeless, and taxpayers. The extra money could then be thrown back into the system, reigniting the economy. It's using socialism to spur capitalism. One big Evil Socialist moment followed by months, if not years, of Good free market mania with big ticket items being bought, rising consumer confidence, and more job creation (with the possibility of income stimulus as well). The government just takes care of the big issue and then people can spend again, banks will loan again, jobs will be created by the money thrown back into the economy, and CEO's still get their luxurious salaries and bonuses at the end of the year.

It's better than another economic stimulus package borrowed from another country, especially an "Evil" one. Our Evil is waaaaay better than their Evil.

I don't think tax breaks for companies or corporate bailouts will work. The tax breaks, as we've witnessed over the past six or so years, did nothing to stimulate the economy. Corporate bailouts simply send the wrong message and just bail out the banks while leaving the citizenry still in peril.

Not perfect, but I'd like to think it would work well for my personal economic crisis.

Without using "douche", tell me. . .

Okay, I've noticed a very strong libertarian streak on Multiply, which I respect, as I have a healthy libertarian streak as well (though not as much as most), and I was wondering if anyone could actually tell me what in the Hell Bob Barr stands for as the Libertarian candidate. Don't use douche, douchebag, or Cavalier d'douche Imperiale as I already know those parts.

While I've heard and read that I shouldn't vote for a major party candidate ("Republican" or "Democratic" - both are travesties on the usage of the words) and very often I have not, why should I vote for Bob Barr?

Speechifyin'

Sarah Palin was an electrifying speaker, really?

Really?

I don't know. Seems like bullshit and shenanigans to me.