On Jun 11, 2008, at 11:42 AM, Kimball Larsen wrote: <snip>
Getting back to what Grant mentioned, I run into a moral dilemma - and it's one that has only recently surfaced for me: Where do we draw the line? At what point *should* the government step in and assist people in distress? It seems that Democrats tend to be in the "anytime you get a boo-boo, the government will come kiss it better for you" camp, while today's republicans seem to be ... uhm.... I'm not sure anymore. Hmm.
I guess I should also clarify the context of my remarks. I am not saying the government should step in to help out with gas prices (but I would really like them to help "control the things they can control" by doing what they can to shore up the dollar and reduce the national debt). I was merely pointing out that there do exist situations that are beyond our direct control, and those can sometimes cause financial hardship and even ruin, despite the most carefully laid plans. I was also pointing out that it is presumptuous to think that most of *us* (meaning those on this list) know much about the "average American" either collectively or individually.
I also believe that we all *should* do the things that Dave and Kimball have mentioned. Don't buy more house or car than you can afford, live within your means, and save as much money as you can. If you are in debt (esp. credit card debt), stop accumulating debt and start paying it off, and get it paid off as soon as is financially feasible. For some people, some of the these things are much easier to say than to do.
Lastly, I am just disgusted with gas/oil prices in general, and I am actively looking to alternative energy sources to power my vehicles. I truly believe our long-term economic viability is tied to becoming less dependent on oil (foreign or otherwise) and more dependent on renewable forms of energy.
Grant /* PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug Don't fear the penguin. */
