Homestead mailing list

[EarthNSky <erthnsky AT bellsouth.net>]

I lost my train of thought(multitasking cooking, etc.) and never 
finished my analogy.
If I DID borrow money to get myself out of debt, even that would be a 
temporary measure because I would pay it back, whereas another 
unacceptable-to-me-solution would be to get on welfare/the dole.
To me, that is the difference between the bailout(which is bad enough as 
it is) and what the Democratic leadership wants(which is totally 
unacceptable to me)...one represents a one time temporary mindset of 
help-where I eventually do for myself again,and one is a more long term 
mindset of having others do for me without me doing for myself.

I hope that answered your question as to how I see it as two different 
things.  I personally would not want either, but apparently some people 
think a bailout is a good idea, and the majority think it did not go far 
enough to 'help', because they will be voting for more of the same.


> If I screwed up my personal finances, I would never borrow money to get
> myself out of trouble.  That would only lead to more trouble.  I would
> just suck it up and take my lumps.  I sure as hell wouldn't borrow money
> from a bank or family..no bailout, no handout...If I am homeless, then I
> deserve to be because I made bad decisions, and it is up to me and only
> me to get myself straighten out and back on the right track without a
> handout.
>
> But back to the question, 

--
“Fear is the path to the Dark Side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to 
hate. Hate leads to suffering.”        Yoda