🚀 go-pugleaf

Don Homuth wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 09:17:15 -0700, pjberg@webtv.net (Paul J. Berg)
> wrote:
> 
> 
>>I think it is great that Oregon could be put back on the map for
>>economic growth instead of the bottom.
> 
> Or not -- either way.  It's not at the bottom.
> 
>>But, I also think people need to think even bigger -- that is global
>>competition. For us to compete with China and India we need to have a
>>government that is as effecient and business-friendly as possible. The
>>way we ran Oregon state government 20 years ago cannot be the same we
>>run it today.
> 
> For starters, are you prepared to reduce US wage scales to those of
> furn competitors?
> 
> That's their competitive advantage, after all.

   That's where things are headed, aren't they?  Governments all over 
the world, prostituting themselves to the highest bidder.  Kansas City 
will become the busiest port in America by 2020 and your currency will 
be the Amero, if the global corporate fascists have their way.

Don Homuth wrote:

> For starters, are you prepared to reduce US wage scales to those of
> furn competitors?
>
> That's their competitive advantage, after all.


Or, asking the same thing in a different way, you believe that US wage
scales should be artifically propped up to pay Americans 10 times what
everybody else gets for the same work?

Don Homuth <dhomuth1@comcast.net> wrote:

> For starters, are you prepared to reduce US wage scales to those of
> furn competitors?
> 

Where's furn? Is that some French province?

On 23 Aug 2006 12:11:36 -0700, "Spread Eagle�"
<redsky@virtualhosts.net> wrote:

>Don Homuth wrote:
>
>> For starters, are you prepared to reduce US wage scales to those of
>> furn competitors?
>>
>> That's their competitive advantage, after all.
>
>Or, asking the same thing in a different way, you believe that US wage
>scales should be artifically propped up to pay Americans 10 times what
>everybody else gets for the same work?

Or to ask the same question the same way, do you believe that Murken
Workers ought to live in a Third World lifestyle?

Would you like to do that?

On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 19:39:41 GMT, Lobby Dosser
<lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net> wrote:

>Where's furn? Is that some French province?

Furn food, furn cars, furn trade, furn policy.

Don Homuth <dhomuth1@comcast.net> wrote:

> On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 19:39:41 GMT, Lobby Dosser
> <lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net> wrote:
> 
>>Where's furn? Is that some French province?
> 
> Furn food, furn cars, furn trade, furn policy.
> 

Fine, where the hell is it?

Don Homuth wrote:

> Or to ask the same question the same way, do you believe that Murken
> Workers ought to live in a Third World lifestyle?

Or, to ask the same question in yet another way, are you, a supposed
multicultural progressive, actually in fact a racist elitist who
believes that Americans are just somehow naturally superior to people
in the third world simply by virtue of being an American, and for no
other reason than that they are therefore automatically entitled to be
paid 10 times what those other people of other races are paid in the
third world for doing the same work?


> Would you like to do that?

I wouldn't be confronted with the prospect because I'm not an unskilled
worker.  America already has abundant natural advantages, like freedom,
and opportunities for training and education, that allow people to
position themselves so that they can rise above grunt labor, and so
they shouldn't have to have their wage rates artifically propped up.
If they haven't pursued and taken advantage of those ubiquitous
opportunities, that's on them.  It's a global economy, baby.  And more
and more so every day.

Lobby Dosser wrote:
> Don Homuth <dhomuth1@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 19:39:41 GMT, Lobby Dosser
> > <lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net> wrote:
> >
> >>Where's furn? Is that some French province?
> >
> > Furn food, furn cars, furn trade, furn policy.
> > 
> 
> Fine, where the hell is it?


North of Murkenistan?

Lobby Dosser wrote:
> Don Homuth <dhomuth1@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 19:39:41 GMT, Lobby Dosser
> > <lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net> wrote:
> >
> >>Where's furn? Is that some French province?
> >
> > Furn food, furn cars, furn trade, furn policy.
> >
>
> Fine, where the hell is it?

What Murkens ain't, but might go to vist if the exchange rate is
acceptable.

Paul J. Berg wrote:
> What if Oregon could enjoy the fastest economic growth rate of any state
> over the next five years? What if, over the next two years, Oregon could
> build a rainy day fund in excess of $2 billion to help cushion
> inevitable economic downturns?


A rainy day fund isn't necessarily a good thing.  It would allow a
government that becomes bloated and unresponsive to maintain status quo
and avoid necessarily reorganizations.

Also, a pot of $2 billion just sitting there will soon become a pot of
$2billion worth of IOUs.  Afterall, politicians were elected to solve
problems they invented, they will need that money to solve their make
believe problems, and of course they will want ot live up to their
promise to provide all things to all people without raising their taxes.

On 23 Aug 2006 13:25:38 -0700, "Spread Eagle�"
<redsky@virtualhosts.net> wrote:

>Don Homuth wrote:
>
>> Or to ask the same question the same way, do you believe that Murken
>> Workers ought to live in a Third World lifestyle?
>
>Or, to ask the same question in yet another way, are you, a supposed
>multicultural progressive, actually in fact a racist elitist who
>believes that Americans are just somehow naturally superior to people
>in the third world simply by virtue of being an American, and for no
>other reason than that they are therefore automatically entitled to be
>paid 10 times what those other people of other races are paid in the
>third world for doing the same work?

What a Fascinating philosophical question, which attempts not to deal
with the initial one as asked.

>> Would you like to do that?
>
>I wouldn't be confronted with the prospect because I'm not an unskilled
>worker.

Skilled workers' jobs are now being outsourced elsewhere as well, with
the Only difference being the wage scale.

You may not be subject to that, you old Economic Elitist you, but you
soon could be.

>  America already has abundant natural advantages, like freedom,
>and opportunities for training and education, that allow people to
>position themselves so that they can rise above grunt labor, and so
>they shouldn't have to have their wage rates artifically propped up.
>If they haven't pursued and taken advantage of those ubiquitous
>opportunities, that's on them.  It's a global economy, baby.  And more
>and more so every day.

This isn't about factory workers any more.  It's about technical
workers and programmers and accountants and all manner of other
erstwhile Highly Skilled Jobs now flowing elsewhere Only because of
wage scales.

All that huffing and puffing still doesn't close with the questions.

Should Murken Workers live on third world lifestyles?

Would you?

After all, everyone can't be as Splendid and Wonderful as you, now,
can they?

On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 20:22:52 GMT, Lobby Dosser
<lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net> wrote:

>Don Homuth <dhomuth1@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 19:39:41 GMT, Lobby Dosser
>> <lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net> wrote:
>> 
>>>Where's furn? Is that some French province?
>> 
>> Furn food, furn cars, furn trade, furn policy.
>> 
>Fine, where the hell is it?

Somewhere Else.

On 23 Aug 2006 13:32:09 -0700, "lein" <boomer_the_cat@my-deja.com>
wrote:

>
>Lobby Dosser wrote:
>> Don Homuth <dhomuth1@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>> > On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 19:39:41 GMT, Lobby Dosser
>> > <lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >>Where's furn? Is that some French province?
>> >
>> > Furn food, furn cars, furn trade, furn policy.
>> > 
>> 
>> Fine, where the hell is it?
>
>North of Murkenistan?

There is no Murkenistan.

On 23 Aug 2006 13:37:43 -0700, "lein" <boomer_the_cat@my-deja.com>
wrote:

>
>Paul J. Berg wrote:
>> What if Oregon could enjoy the fastest economic growth rate of any state
>> over the next five years? What if, over the next two years, Oregon could
>> build a rainy day fund in excess of $2 billion to help cushion
>> inevitable economic downturns?
>
>A rainy day fund isn't necessarily a good thing.

Depends on what you do with it.

>  It would allow a
>government that becomes bloated and unresponsive to maintain status quo
>and avoid necessarily reorganizations.

No reason to assert that would necessarily follow.  A cash pool
doesn't require that outcome.

>Also, a pot of $2 billion just sitting there will soon become a pot of
>$2billion worth of IOUs.

First off, it won't just sit there.  That would be a Really Stupid Way
to manage any large cash pool.  It will be held in banks as a part of
their reserve, and from which they will loan money, but they will be
required to redeem the loan from the State on demand.

Modern cash pool management techniques are probably unknown to you,
but they do exist, to the general benefit of taxpayers.

The main criticism of Rainy Day Funds is that they require an overtax
above current spending and debt servicing.  That's a perfectly
legitimate question, and different folks have different takes on doing
so.

One could, for example, use a state's borrowing power to get through
the occasional periods of insufficient cash flow just as easily,
rather than establishing a Rainy Day Fund.  The problem with that, of
course, is establishing appropriate limits on the action, but that's
no more difficult than establishing the RDF itself.

>  Afterall, politicians were elected to solve
>problems they invented, they will need that money to solve their make
>believe problems, and of course they will want ot live up to their
>promise to provide all things to all people without raising their taxes.

The folks elected don't invent the problems.  In fact, they'd as lief
not have them in the first place.  They didn't invent the need for law
enforcement, courts, public health, public infrastructure or a panoply
of other needs that The People have declared are important.

Don Homuth wrote:

> >Or, to ask the same question in yet another way, are you, a supposed
> >multicultural progressive, actually in fact a racist elitist who
> >believes that Americans are just somehow naturally superior to people
> >in the third world simply by virtue of being an American, and for no
> >other reason than that they are therefore automatically entitled to be
> >paid 10 times what those other people of other races are paid in the
> >third world for doing the same work?
>
> What a Fascinating philosophical question, which attempts not to deal
> with the initial one as asked.

Oh come on.  It's exactly the question and exactly the issue.  You just
don't like what it says about your worldview, so you pretend otherwise.



> Skilled workers' jobs are now being outsourced elsewhere as well, with
> the Only difference being the wage scale.

Yes, it is increasingly a global economy.  I already said that.  And
that ship has already sailed.


> You may not be subject to that, you old Economic Elitist you, but you
> soon could be.

Maybe.  But the key is to be flexible, embrace change as a good thing,
and constantly adapt to stay ahead of the curve.



> >  America already has abundant natural advantages, like freedom,
> >and opportunities for training and education, that allow people to
> >position themselves so that they can rise above grunt labor, and so
> >they shouldn't have to have their wage rates artifically propped up.
> >If they haven't pursued and taken advantage of those ubiquitous
> >opportunities, that's on them.  It's a global economy, baby.  And more
> >and more so every day.

> This isn't about factory workers any more.  It's about technical
> workers and programmers and accountants and all manner of other
> erstwhile Highly Skilled Jobs now flowing elsewhere Only because of
> wage scales.

You're the one who brought up their competitive advantage over us is,
their endless supply of cheap labor.  And by exploiting that, and
exploiting the fact that we vastly overpay our labor doing the same
work, yes, the rest of world is catching up with us.  And it is
increasingly a global economy.  We cannot prop our wages up much
longer.  That will be our undoing.  As I said, the freedoms and
opportunities here are our advantages.  We need to bring them to bear.



> All that huffing and puffing still doesn't close with the questions.
>
> Should Murken Workers live on third world lifestyles?

Should has nothing to do with it.  As long as we pass laws propping up
fat lazy union workers and creating unrealistic minimum wages they will
catch us, they will pass us.

On 23 Aug 2006 14:14:23 -0700, "Spread Eagle�"
<redsky@virtualhosts.net> wrote:

>Don Homuth wrote:
>
>> >Or, to ask the same question in yet another way, are you, a supposed
>> >multicultural progressive, actually in fact a racist elitist who
>> >believes that Americans are just somehow naturally superior to people
>> >in the third world simply by virtue of being an American, and for no
>> >other reason than that they are therefore automatically entitled to be
>> >paid 10 times what those other people of other races are paid in the
>> >third world for doing the same work?
>>
>> What a Fascinating philosophical question, which attempts not to deal
>> with the initial one as asked.
>
>Oh come on.  It's exactly the question and exactly the issue.  You just
>don't like what it says about your worldview, so you pretend otherwise.

No -- your question gets involved with several other non-germane
matters.

Do you believe that Murken Workers ought to be satisfied with a third
world wage scale

>> Skilled workers' jobs are now being outsourced elsewhere as well, with
>> the Only difference being the wage scale.
>
>Yes, it is increasingly a global economy.  I already said that.  And
>that ship has already sailed.

Does that mean your answer to the question is Yes?

>> You may not be subject to that, you old Economic Elitist you, but you
>> soon could be.
>
>Maybe.  But the key is to be flexible, embrace change as a good thing,
>and constantly adapt to stay ahead of the curve.

And it helps if you start off well off.

>> This isn't about factory workers any more.  It's about technical
>> workers and programmers and accountants and all manner of other
>> erstwhile Highly Skilled Jobs now flowing elsewhere Only because of
>> wage scales.
>
>You're the one who brought up their competitive advantage over us is,
>their endless supply of cheap labor.  And by exploiting that, and
>exploiting the fact that we vastly overpay our labor doing the same
>work, yes, the rest of world is catching up with us.  And it is
>increasingly a global economy.  We cannot prop our wages up much
>longer.  That will be our undoing.  As I said, the freedoms and
>opportunities here are our advantages.  We need to bring them to bear.

So once again, the simple answer to your question is Yes?

>> All that huffing and puffing still doesn't close with the questions.
>>
>> Should Murken Workers live on third world lifestyles?
>
>Should has nothing to do with it.  As long as we pass laws propping up
>fat lazy union workers and creating unrealistic minimum wages they will
>catch us, they will pass us.

You would be pleased to have Murken Workers living in third world
conditions then?

Thank you.

You may now safely be ignored on the matter.

Don Homuth <dhomuth1@comcast.net> wrote:

> 
> The folks elected don't invent the problems.  In fact, they'd as lief
> not have them in the first place.  They didn't invent the need for law
> enforcement, courts, public health, public infrastructure or a panoply
> of other needs that The People have declared are important.

Did the majority of Americans clamor for Food Stamps? How about 
multilingual ballots? ....

Don Homuth <dhomuth1@comcast.net> wrote:

> On 23 Aug 2006 13:32:09 -0700, "lein" <boomer_the_cat@my-deja.com>
> wrote:
> 
>>
>>Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>> Don Homuth <dhomuth1@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> > On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 19:39:41 GMT, Lobby Dosser
>>> > <lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >>Where's furn? Is that some French province?
>>> >
>>> > Furn food, furn cars, furn trade, furn policy.
>>> > 
>>> 
>>> Fine, where the hell is it?
>>
>>North of Murkenistan?
> 
> There is no Murkenistan.
> 

There you go. As expected, you just blather on about imaginary Stuff. Or, 
a pack of lies.

"Spread Eagle�" <redsky@virtualhosts.net> wrote:

> 
> Lobby Dosser wrote:
>> Don Homuth <dhomuth1@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>> > On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 19:39:41 GMT, Lobby Dosser
>> > <lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >>Where's furn? Is that some French province?
>> >
>> > Furn food, furn cars, furn trade, furn policy.
>> >
>>
>> Fine, where the hell is it?
> 
> What Murkens ain't, but might go to vist if the exchange rate is
> acceptable.
> 
> 

IOW, it exists in your head. Like most of your other constructs.

On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 00:03:34 GMT, Lobby Dosser
<lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net> wrote:

>Don Homuth <dhomuth1@comcast.net> wrote:
>

>> I use the term phonetically from the LBJ phrase, "Mah frains an fella
>> Murkens."  As I've explained several times hereon already previously.
>
>LBJ didn't sound like that.

Sure he did.  I have a tape of it.

>>> Or, a pack of lies.
>> 
>> The lying hereon recently is clearly Yours -- not mine.
>
>Recently. I don't think so.
>
>I guess if you're not lying it must all be in your head.

You don't hear the accent.  But it's there -- the Texican drawl he was
famous for, especially when he was tarred.

On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 00:06:23 GMT, Lobby Dosser
<lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net> wrote:

>Don Homuth <dhomuth1@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 23:32:29 GMT, Lobby Dosser
>> <lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net> wrote:
>> 
>>>Don Homuth <dhomuth1@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> 
>>>> The folks elected don't invent the problems.  In fact, they'd as
>>>> lief not have them in the first place.  They didn't invent the need
>>>> for law enforcement, courts, public health, public infrastructure or
>>>> a panoply of other needs that The People have declared are
>>>> important. 
>>>
>>>Did the majority of Americans clamor for Food Stamps?
>> 
>> The grocery industry did, as did the folks handing out commodities --
>> which were always a labor-intensive and therefore Expensive matter to
>> deal with.  Food Stamps, it turns out, were the least expensive and
>> most cost-effective way to deal with the entire Hunger issue -- which
>> was and remains real in many places.
>> 
>> The commodities, in turn, derived from the demand from various food
>> industry sectors for price supports.
>
>The question was: Did the majority of Americans clamor for Food Stamps?

The key players in the food industry certainly did.  Most Murkens
weren't aware of them.

>>> How about multilingual ballots? ....
>> 
>> Why would the majority ask for multilingual ballots?  Most folks don't
>> need them.  But the majority does seem to accept the idea that those
>> who Can vote but need a multilingual ballot probably ought to have
>> one.
>
>Again, you back and fill. Legislatures clearly invented something that 
>the majority of their constituents was not clamoring for.

If the Only things  that legislatures may do is based Only on what
some alleged Majority of folks ask for, then little would ever get
done.

Most constituents don't ask for bridges across specific rivers, yet
they are provided withal, because Some constituents find them
necessary.

On 23 Aug 2006 21:01:51 -0700, "lein" <boomer_the_cat@my-deja.com>
wrote:

>
>Don Homuth wrote:
>> On 23 Aug 2006 13:37:43 -0700, "lein" <boomer_the_cat@my-deja.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >Paul J. Berg wrote:
>> >> What if Oregon could enjoy the fastest economic growth rate of any state
>> >> over the next five years? What if, over the next two years, Oregon could
>> >> build a rainy day fund in excess of $2 billion to help cushion
>> >> inevitable economic downturns?
>> >
>> >A rainy day fund isn't necessarily a good thing.
>>
>> Depends on what you do with it.
>>
>> >  It would allow a
>> >government that becomes bloated and unresponsive to maintain status quo
>> >and avoid necessarily reorganizations.
>>
>> No reason to assert that would necessarily follow.  A cash pool
>> doesn't require that outcome.
>
>There is no incentive to reform and regain efficiencies.

There are insufficient incentives, I'll grant you, but hardly the case
there are None.  Bonuses and Promotions oftimes follow suggestions for
efficiencies, but by and large they are difficult to provide because
there are some folks who believe they are undeserved with public
employees.

>> >Also, a pot of $2 billion just sitting there will soon become a pot of
>> >$2billion worth of IOUs.
>>
>> First off, it won't just sit there.  That would be a Really Stupid Way
>> to manage any large cash pool.  It will be held in banks as a part of
>> their reserve, and from which they will loan money, but they will be
>> required to redeem the loan from the State on demand.
>>
>> Modern cash pool management techniques are probably unknown to you,
>> but they do exist, to the general benefit of taxpayers.
>
>Actually I'm quite aware of large cash pool management techniques and
>politicians.  The Feds call it social security.   It's AlGores lock box
>that holds billions in IOUs.

No -- that is not the case.  And you're the greater fool for saying
so.

Oregon, for example, does a rather sophisticated form of Cash Pool
Management that regularly results in a net return of >$60M/annum back
into the general fund, from the interest that the cash pool draws.

The reason the cash pool exists at all is because expenses are
"smooth" and revenues are "lumpy" in gubmint finance.

But since you clearly know from Nothing about what a real Cash Pool
is, trying to explain it to you is pearls before swine.

On 24 Aug 2006 09:38:28 -0700, "lein" <boomer_the_cat@my-deja.com>
wrote:

>
>ZenIsWhen wrote:

>> BTW - it's the government OF the people, By the people, and FOR the people.
>> "Corporate friendly" isn't even mentioned!
>
>Corporations are a collection OF the people.

Of vanishingly few of The People.

On 24 Aug 2006 09:39:36 -0700, "lein" <boomer_the_cat@my-deja.com>
wrote:

>
>cor wrote:
>> "Paul J. Berg" wrote:
>> >
>> > I think it is great that Oregon could be put back on the map for
>> > economic growth instead of the bottom.
>>
>> What list puts Oregon at the bottom?
>
>it's bloated and inefficient government.

Provide specifics.

This could be fun.

Don Homuth wrote:
> On 24 Aug 2006 09:38:28 -0700, "lein" <boomer_the_cat@my-deja.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >ZenIsWhen wrote:
>
> >> BTW - it's the government OF the people, By the people, and FOR the people.
> >> "Corporate friendly" isn't even mentioned!
> >
> >Corporations are a collection OF the people.
>
> Of vanishingly few of The People.

No, I'm pretty sure more people own shares of corporation now than most
times in the past.

-
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software  - Baxter Codeworks  www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------


"lein" <boomer_the_cat@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:1156444265.545809.290670@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
>
> Don Homuth wrote:
> > On 24 Aug 2006 09:38:28 -0700, "lein" <boomer_the_cat@my-deja.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >ZenIsWhen wrote:
> >
> > >> BTW - it's the government OF the people, By the people, and FOR the
people.
> > >> "Corporate friendly" isn't even mentioned!
> > >
> > >Corporations are a collection OF the people.
> >
> > Of vanishingly few of The People.
>
> No, I'm pretty sure more people own shares of corporation now than most
> times in the past.
>

Ever tried to vote your share?  Only the rich have voice in the corporation.

Baxter wrote:
> -
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Free software  - Baxter Codeworks  www.baxcode.com
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> "lein" <boomer_the_cat@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:1156444265.545809.290670@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Don Homuth wrote:
> > > On 24 Aug 2006 09:38:28 -0700, "lein" <boomer_the_cat@my-deja.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >ZenIsWhen wrote:
> > >
> > > >> BTW - it's the government OF the people, By the people, and FOR the
> people.
> > > >> "Corporate friendly" isn't even mentioned!
> > > >
> > > >Corporations are a collection OF the people.
> > >
> > > Of vanishingly few of The People.
> >
> > No, I'm pretty sure more people own shares of corporation now than most
> > times in the past.
> >
>
> Ever tried to vote your share?  Only the rich have voice in the corporation.

Yes I have voted my share.  Sometimes I allow a proxy vote my share.

On 24 Aug 2006 11:31:05 -0700, "lein" <boomer_the_cat@my-deja.com>
wrote:

>
>Don Homuth wrote:
>> On 24 Aug 2006 09:38:28 -0700, "lein" <boomer_the_cat@my-deja.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >ZenIsWhen wrote:
>>
>> >> BTW - it's the government OF the people, By the people, and FOR the people.
>> >> "Corporate friendly" isn't even mentioned!
>> >
>> >Corporations are a collection OF the people.
>>
>> Of vanishingly few of The People.
>
>No, I'm pretty sure more people own shares of corporation now than most
>times in the past.

Vanishingly few of The People are owners of any given corporation.

And most corporate shares are not owned by The People but by other
entities.

For all the increase, most Murkens don't own shares in any
corporation.

cor <cor@exchangenet.net> wrote:

> 
> 
> Lobby Dosser wrote:
>> 
>> cor <cor@exchangenet.net> wrote:
>> 
>> >
>> >
>> > "Paul J. Berg" wrote:
>> >>
>> >> I think it is great that Oregon could be put back on the map for
>> >> economic growth instead of the bottom.
>> >
>> > What list puts Oregon at the bottom?
>> >
> 
> 
> Did not answer the question
> Again, What list puts Oregon at the bottom?
> 
> 
>> >> But, I also think people need to think even bigger -- that is 
global
>> >> competition. For us to compete with China and India we need to have 
a
>> >
>> >
>> > Institute voluntary slavery and 20cent an hour minimum wage minus
>> > benefits?
>> 
>> Hey!! CUBA!!
> 
> 
> What is the minimum salary in Cuba?
> 


I said 20 cents per hour. Turns out it is more like 6 cents per hour. It 
was DOUBLED in **2005** to $9.40 per MONTH.

mea culpa, mea culpa ...

Don Homuth <dhomuth1@comcast.net> wrote:

> On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 00:03:34 GMT, Lobby Dosser
> <lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net> wrote:
> 
>>Don Homuth <dhomuth1@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
> 
>>> I use the term phonetically from the LBJ phrase, "Mah frains an
>>> fella Murkens."  As I've explained several times hereon already
>>> previously. 
>>
>>LBJ didn't sound like that.
> 
> Sure he did.  I have a tape of it.

No he didn't.

> 
>>>> Or, a pack of lies.
>>> 
>>> The lying hereon recently is clearly Yours -- not mine.
>>
>>Recently. I don't think so.
>>
>>I guess if you're not lying it must all be in your head.
> 
> You don't hear the accent.  But it's there -- the Texican drawl he was
> famous for, especially when he was tarred.

You're full of shit.

> 

Don Homuth <dhomuth1@comcast.net> wrote:

> On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 00:06:23 GMT, Lobby Dosser
> <lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net> wrote:
> 
>>Don Homuth <dhomuth1@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 23:32:29 GMT, Lobby Dosser
>>> <lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net> wrote:
>>> 
>>>>Don Homuth <dhomuth1@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> 
>>>>> The folks elected don't invent the problems.  In fact, they'd as
>>>>> lief not have them in the first place.  They didn't invent the
>>>>> need for law enforcement, courts, public health, public
>>>>> infrastructure or a panoply of other needs that The People have
>>>>> declared are important. 
>>>>
>>>>Did the majority of Americans clamor for Food Stamps?
>>> 
>>> The grocery industry did, as did the folks handing out commodities
>>> -- which were always a labor-intensive and therefore Expensive
>>> matter to deal with.  Food Stamps, it turns out, were the least
>>> expensive and most cost-effective way to deal with the entire Hunger
>>> issue -- which was and remains real in many places.
>>> 
>>> The commodities, in turn, derived from the demand from various food
>>> industry sectors for price supports.
>>
>>The question was: Did the majority of Americans clamor for Food
>>Stamps? 
> 
> The key players in the food industry certainly did.  Most Murkens
> weren't aware of them.

DID THE MAJORITY OF AMERICANS CLAMOR FOR FOOD STAMPS?!

> 
>>>> How about multilingual ballots? ....
>>> 
>>> Why would the majority ask for multilingual ballots?  Most folks
>>> don't need them.  But the majority does seem to accept the idea that
>>> those who Can vote but need a multilingual ballot probably ought to
>>> have one.
>>
>>Again, you back and fill. Legislatures clearly invented something that
>>the majority of their constituents was not clamoring for.
> 
> If the Only things  that legislatures may do is based Only on what
> some alleged Majority of folks ask for, then little would ever get
> done.
> 
> Most constituents don't ask for bridges across specific rivers, yet
> they are provided withal, because Some constituents find them
> necessary.

THEN THE CONSTUENCY IS ********NOT******** CLAMORING!!!!!!

SEE HOW THAT WORKS?

THEY MAKE UP SHIT AS THEY GO ALONG. JUST LIKE YOU.

> 

On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 21:09:59 GMT, Lobby Dosser
<lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net> wrote:

>DID THE MAJORITY OF AMERICANS CLAMOR FOR FOOD STAMPS?!

Depends on how you want to see it.  Food Stamps were a relatively
lower cost method of getting food to the hungry than was the previous
welfare system.

Lower is better than Higher.

At the time, Murkens generally approved of doing it, and the grocery
industry Really approved of doing it.

>> Most constituents don't ask for bridges across specific rivers, yet
>> they are provided withal, because Some constituents find them
>> necessary.
>
>THEN THE CONSTUENCY IS ********NOT******** CLAMORING!!!!!!

It's not supposed to be Clamoring.

Folks leave that sort of thing up to your lot.

>SEE HOW THAT WORKS?

Have for years.  Back when I was in the Nordakoda State Senate, we
passed a school aid bill for something like $152M -- which was, at the
time, a considerable sum of money.

Was "the majority" clamoring for it?

Probably not.

Was it a good idea?

Absolutely it was!  Else the folks would have had to pay higher
property taxes.

>THEY MAKE UP SHIT AS THEY GO ALONG. JUST LIKE YOU.

Heh!  Getting a tad het up there, aren'tcha?

Calm yerself a bit here, take a deep breath.

Then go have a nap.  You apparently need one.

Don Homuth <dhomuth1@comcast.net> wrote:

> On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 21:09:59 GMT, Lobby Dosser
> <lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net> wrote:
> 
>>DID THE MAJORITY OF AMERICANS CLAMOR FOR FOOD STAMPS?!
> 
> Depends on how you want to see it.  Food Stamps were a relatively
> lower cost method of getting food to the hungry than was the previous
> welfare system.
> 
> Lower is better than Higher.
> 
> At the time, Murkens generally approved of doing it, and the grocery
> industry Really approved of doing it.
> 
>>> Most constituents don't ask for bridges across specific rivers, yet
>>> they are provided withal, because Some constituents find them
>>> necessary.
>>
>>THEN THE CONSTUENCY IS ********NOT******** CLAMORING!!!!!!
> 
> It's not supposed to be Clamoring.
> 
> Folks leave that sort of thing up to your lot.
> 
>>SEE HOW THAT WORKS?
> 
> Have for years.  Back when I was in the Nordakoda State Senate, we
> passed a school aid bill for something like $152M -- which was, at the
> time, a considerable sum of money.
> 
> Was "the majority" clamoring for it?
> 
> Probably not.

Then the LEGISLATURE SOLVED A PROBLEM THE PEOPLE DIDN'T CARE ABOUT. 

On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 20:53:12 GMT, Lobby Dosser
<lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net> wrote:

>cor <cor@exchangenet.net> wrote:
>
>> 
>> 
>> Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>> 
>>> cor <cor@exchangenet.net> wrote:
>>> 
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > "Paul J. Berg" wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> I think it is great that Oregon could be put back on the map for
>>> >> economic growth instead of the bottom.
>>> >
>>> > What list puts Oregon at the bottom?
>>> >
>> 
>> 
>> Did not answer the question
>> Again, What list puts Oregon at the bottom?
>> 
>> 
>>> >> But, I also think people need to think even bigger -- that is 
>global
>>> >> competition. For us to compete with China and India we need to have 
>a
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Institute voluntary slavery and 20cent an hour minimum wage minus
>>> > benefits?
>>> 
>>> Hey!! CUBA!!
>> 
>> 
>> What is the minimum salary in Cuba?
>> 
>
>
>I said 20 cents per hour. Turns out it is more like 6 cents per hour. It 
>was DOUBLED in **2005** to $9.40 per MONTH.
>
>mea culpa, mea culpa ...

Git that fuckwit CUR outta MY group!

Lobby Dosser wrote:
> cor <cor@exchangenet.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Lobby Dosser wrote:
> >>
> >> cor <cor@exchangenet.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > "Paul J. Berg" wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> I think it is great that Oregon could be put back on the map for
> >> >> economic growth instead of the bottom.
> >> >
> >> > What list puts Oregon at the bottom?
> >> >
> >
> >
> > Did not answer the question
> > Again, What list puts Oregon at the bottom?
> >
> >
> >> >> But, I also think people need to think even bigger -- that is
> global
> >> >> competition. For us to compete with China and India we need to have
> a
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Institute voluntary slavery and 20cent an hour minimum wage minus
> >> > benefits?
> >>
> >> Hey!! CUBA!!
> >
> >
> > What is the minimum salary in Cuba?
> >
>
>
> I said 20 cents per hour. Turns out it is more like 6 cents per hour. It
> was DOUBLED in **2005** to $9.40 per MONTH.
> 
> mea culpa, mea culpa ...


http://tinyurl.com/euavm

"lein" <boomer_the_cat@my-deja.com> wrote:

> 
> Lobby Dosser wrote:
>> cor <cor@exchangenet.net> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> > Lobby Dosser wrote:
>> >>
>> >> cor <cor@exchangenet.net> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > "Paul J. Berg" wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I think it is great that Oregon could be put back on the map
>> >> >> for economic growth instead of the bottom.
>> >> >
>> >> > What list puts Oregon at the bottom?
>> >> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Did not answer the question
>> > Again, What list puts Oregon at the bottom?
>> >
>> >
>> >> >> But, I also think people need to think even bigger -- that is
>> global
>> >> >> competition. For us to compete with China and India we need to
>> >> >> have 
>> a
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > Institute voluntary slavery and 20cent an hour minimum wage
>> >> > minus benefits?
>> >>
>> >> Hey!! CUBA!!
>> >
>> >
>> > What is the minimum salary in Cuba?
>> >
>>
>>
>> I said 20 cents per hour. Turns out it is more like 6 cents per hour.
>> It was DOUBLED in **2005** to $9.40 per MONTH.
>> 
>> mea culpa, mea culpa ...
> 
> 
> http://tinyurl.com/euavm
> 
> 

LOL!! 

cool!!

Lobby Dosser wrote:
> Don Homuth <dhomuth1@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 21:09:59 GMT, Lobby Dosser
> > <lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net> wrote:
> >
> >>DID THE MAJORITY OF AMERICANS CLAMOR FOR FOOD STAMPS?!
> >
> > Depends on how you want to see it.  Food Stamps were a relatively
> > lower cost method of getting food to the hungry than was the previous
> > welfare system.
> >
> > Lower is better than Higher.
> >
> > At the time, Murkens generally approved of doing it, and the grocery
> > industry Really approved of doing it.
> >
> >>> Most constituents don't ask for bridges across specific rivers, yet
> >>> they are provided withal, because Some constituents find them
> >>> necessary.
> >>
> >>THEN THE CONSTUENCY IS ********NOT******** CLAMORING!!!!!!
> >
> > It's not supposed to be Clamoring.
> >
> > Folks leave that sort of thing up to your lot.
> >
> >>SEE HOW THAT WORKS?
> >
> > Have for years.  Back when I was in the Nordakoda State Senate, we
> > passed a school aid bill for something like $152M -- which was, at the
> > time, a considerable sum of money.
> >
> > Was "the majority" clamoring for it?
> >
> > Probably not.
>
> Then the LEGISLATURE SOLVED A PROBLEM THE PEOPLE DIDN'T CARE ABOUT.


Not only that but it violates Don doctrine that such matters be handled
locally.

Of course, I doubt that was his policy then and I'm quite sure he was
rewarded by the teacher's union for his efforts.

On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 00:14:05 GMT, Lobby Dosser
<lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net> wrote:

>Don Homuth <dhomuth1@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> Back when I was in the Nordakoda State Senate, we
>> passed a school aid bill for something like $152M -- which was, at the
>> time, a considerable sum of money.
>> 
>> Was "the majority" clamoring for it?
>> 
>> Probably not.
>
>Then the LEGISLATURE SOLVED A PROBLEM THE PEOPLE DIDN'T CARE ABOUT. 

Not at all.  You really do Not comprehend how legislation work at all,
do you?

Where does this demand for a Clamor derive from?  BT's endless
nattering?  Or does it spring full-blown from your own brow?

There's no need for a Clamor for a legislature to do something.

Sheesh -- you're really getting Odd of late!

The people cared about school aid.  They just didn't Clamor for it.

Caring != Clamoring, Lobby.

On 24 Aug 2006 19:46:20 -0700, "lein" <boomer_the_cat@my-deja.com>
wrote:

>
>Lobby Dosser wrote:
>> Don Homuth <dhomuth1@comcast.net> wrote:
>>  Back when I was in the Nordakoda State Senate, we
>> > passed a school aid bill for something like $152M -- which was, at the
>> > time, a considerable sum of money.
>> >
>> > Was "the majority" clamoring for it?
>> >
>> > Probably not.
>>
>> Then the LEGISLATURE SOLVED A PROBLEM THE PEOPLE DIDN'T CARE ABOUT.
>
>Not only that but it violates Don doctrine that such matters be handled
>locally.

That's not a doctrine.  It was a property tax relief measure, and we
did it mostly because we Could do it.

Otherwise, under ND statutes, property taxes would have been higher.

>Of course, I doubt that was his policy then and I'm quite sure he was
>rewarded by the teacher's union for his efforts.

The teacher's union never donated even one dime to my efforts.
Neither did any other union.

And your guesses of what happened full thirty years ago are entirely
content-free.

Don Homuth wrote:
> On 24 Aug 2006 19:46:20 -0700, "lein" <boomer_the_cat@my-deja.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >Lobby Dosser wrote:
> >> Don Homuth <dhomuth1@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>  Back when I was in the Nordakoda State Senate, we
> >> > passed a school aid bill for something like $152M -- which was, at the
> >> > time, a considerable sum of money.
> >> >
> >> > Was "the majority" clamoring for it?
> >> >
> >> > Probably not.
> >>
> >> Then the LEGISLATURE SOLVED A PROBLEM THE PEOPLE DIDN'T CARE ABOUT.
> >
> >Not only that but it violates Don doctrine that such matters be handled
> >locally.
>
> That's not a doctrine.  It was a property tax relief measure, and we
> did it mostly because we Could do it.
>
> Otherwise, under ND statutes, property taxes would have been higher.


And your position on Measure 5 is?

"lein" <boomer_the_cat@my-deja.com> wrote:

> 
> Lobby Dosser wrote:
>> Don Homuth <dhomuth1@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>> > On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 21:09:59 GMT, Lobby Dosser
>> > <lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >>DID THE MAJORITY OF AMERICANS CLAMOR FOR FOOD STAMPS?!
>> >
>> > Depends on how you want to see it.  Food Stamps were a relatively
>> > lower cost method of getting food to the hungry than was the
>> > previous welfare system.
>> >
>> > Lower is better than Higher.
>> >
>> > At the time, Murkens generally approved of doing it, and the
>> > grocery industry Really approved of doing it.
>> >
>> >>> Most constituents don't ask for bridges across specific rivers,
>> >>> yet they are provided withal, because Some constituents find them
>> >>> necessary.
>> >>
>> >>THEN THE CONSTUENCY IS ********NOT******** CLAMORING!!!!!!
>> >
>> > It's not supposed to be Clamoring.
>> >
>> > Folks leave that sort of thing up to your lot.
>> >
>> >>SEE HOW THAT WORKS?
>> >
>> > Have for years.  Back when I was in the Nordakoda State Senate, we
>> > passed a school aid bill for something like $152M -- which was, at
>> > the time, a considerable sum of money.
>> >
>> > Was "the majority" clamoring for it?
>> >
>> > Probably not.
>>
>> Then the LEGISLATURE SOLVED A PROBLEM THE PEOPLE DIDN'T CARE ABOUT.
> 
> 
> Not only that but it violates Don doctrine that such matters be
> handled locally.
> 
> Of course, I doubt that was his policy then and I'm quite sure he was
> rewarded by the teacher's union for his efforts.
> 
> 

Oh shoot. I missed that. I usually stop reading when I get woozy from the 
gas.

Don Homuth <dhomuth1@comcast.net> wrote:

> On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 00:14:05 GMT, Lobby Dosser
> <lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net> wrote:
> 
>>Don Homuth <dhomuth1@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Back when I was in the Nordakoda State Senate, we
>>> passed a school aid bill for something like $152M -- which was, at
>>> the time, a considerable sum of money.
>>> 
>>> Was "the majority" clamoring for it?
>>> 
>>> Probably not.
>>
>>Then the LEGISLATURE SOLVED A PROBLEM THE PEOPLE DIDN'T CARE ABOUT. 
> 
> Not at all.  You really do Not comprehend how legislation work at all,
> do you?

No, NUMBNUTS! YOU don't comprehend what YOU WRITE! YOU said the 
legislature did NOT solve problems the people did not want solved, but 
you snipped that bit - you lying sack of shit. Not Spinning. Not Backing 
and Filling. Lying sack of shit!

>>>> lief not have them in the first place.  They didn't invent the need
>>>> for law enforcement, courts, public health, public infrastructure or
>>>> a panoply of other needs that The People have declared are
>>>> important. 
>>>

> 
> Where does this demand for a Clamor derive from?  BT's endless
> nattering?  Or does it spring full-blown from your own brow?
> 
> There's no need for a Clamor for a legislature to do something.

Read your own words, LIAR.

> 
> Sheesh -- you're really getting Odd of late!

But you are getting to be a Lying Sack Of Shit - on a DAILY basis.

Paul J. Berg wrote:
> What if Oregon could enjoy the fastest economic growth rate of any state
> over the next five years? What if, over the next two years, Oregon could
> build a rainy day fund in excess of $2 billion to help cushion
> inevitable economic downturns?
>
> The first scenario above is what actually happened in Colorado from 1995
> through 2000, the first five years of its citizen-imposed spending
> limitation, known there as TABOR, or Taxpayer Bill of Rights. The second
> scenario is what forecasters predict will happen here over the next two
> years if Oregonians pass a spending limitation on the November ballot
> known as the Rainy Day Amendment.

Geez...
You Oregonians still talking politics?

Speaking of rainy days..
You've got about one more month before the six-month monsoon starts
again.
Get outside and enjoy that glorious sunshine while you can - and leave
the politics for the doom and gloomy season.

"Curt" <cje@hevanet.com> wrote:

> 
> "Lobby Dosser" <lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:hA5Hg.10955$St4.2960@trnddc01...
>> Don Homuth <dhomuth1@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > The folks elected don't invent the problems.  In fact, they'd as
>> > lief not have them in the first place.  They didn't invent the need
>> > for law enforcement, courts, public health, public infrastructure
>> > or a panoply of other needs that The People have declared are
>> > important. 
>>
>> Did the majority of Americans clamor for Food Stamps?
> 
> Yeah, actually, I believe they did.

CITE :o)

"Lobby Dosser" <lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:hA5Hg.10955$St4.2960@trnddc01...
> Don Homuth <dhomuth1@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >
> > The folks elected don't invent the problems.  In fact, they'd as lief
> > not have them in the first place.  They didn't invent the need for law
> > enforcement, courts, public health, public infrastructure or a panoply
> > of other needs that The People have declared are important.
>
> Did the majority of Americans clamor for Food Stamps?

Yeah, actually, I believe they did.

Curt

"Don Homuth" <dhomuth1@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:nmore2pmdrufentcfk7uih6qfgk6hlohku@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 00:06:23 GMT, Lobby Dosser
> <lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> >Don Homuth <dhomuth1@comcast.net> wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 23:32:29 GMT, Lobby Dosser
> >> <lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>>Don Homuth <dhomuth1@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> The folks elected don't invent the problems.  In fact, they'd as
> >>>> lief not have them in the first place.  They didn't invent the need
> >>>> for law enforcement, courts, public health, public infrastructure or
> >>>> a panoply of other needs that The People have declared are
> >>>> important.
> >>>
> >>>Did the majority of Americans clamor for Food Stamps?
> >>
> >> The grocery industry did, as did the folks handing out commodities --
> >> which were always a labor-intensive and therefore Expensive matter to
> >> deal with.  Food Stamps, it turns out, were the least expensive and
> >> most cost-effective way to deal with the entire Hunger issue -- which
> >> was and remains real in many places.
> >>
> >> The commodities, in turn, derived from the demand from various food
> >> industry sectors for price supports.
> >
> >The question was: Did the majority of Americans clamor for Food Stamps?
>
> The key players in the food industry certainly did.  Most Murkens
> weren't aware of them.

I could be wrong here but it seems I've read that when that program came
around, it was popular. Wasn't it one of those Great Society things? We were
gonna whip poverty, blah blah.. ?

Curt

<Dan S. Milagros> wrote in message
news:aeque2le0fqnp0t51phse852taidk4sada@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 08:11:24 -0700, pjberg@webtv.net (Paul J. Berg)
> wrote:
>
> >
> >What if Oregon could enjoy the fastest economic growth rate of any state
> >over the next five years? What if, over the next two years, Oregon could
> >build a rainy day fund in excess of $2 billion to help cushion
> >inevitable economic downturns?
> >
> >The first scenario above is what actually happened in Colorado from 1995
> >through 2000, the first five years of its citizen-imposed spending
> >limitation, known there as TABOR, or Taxpayer Bill of Rights. The second
> >scenario is what forecasters predict will happen here over the next two
> >years if Oregonians pass a spending limitation on the November ballot
> >known as the Rainy Day Amendment.
> >
> >Tax and expenditure limitations are on the books in some 30 states,
> >keeping the size of government in check through limiting either state
> >revenue or spending. They generally do so by tying government growth to
> >either the growth of personal income or to a combination of inflation
> >plus population growth. Inflation plus population growth has
> >historically been more consistent and less volatile than the growth of
> >personal income, which can fluctuate widely.
> >
> >Colorado's TABOR amendment is actually quite different from the proposed
> >Oregon Rainy Day Amendment. TABOR limits growth in both state and local
> >government revenue. It requires that revenue above the limitation be
> >returned to taxpayers, which worked well during the economic boom of the
> >late 1990s, but which put downward pressure on government budgets during
> >the bust that occurred in the early part of this decade. This so-called
> >ratchet down effect caused Colorado voters to suspend TABOR for five
> >years beginning last November.
> >
> >Oregon's Rainy Day proposal limits not revenue, but expenditures. It
> >applies only to the state, not to local governments. Revenue collected
> >above the limitation can either be kept in a rainy day fund or returned
> >to taxpayers at the legislature's discretion. Oregon's proposal has no
> >ratchet down mechanism.
> >
> >In fact, unlike in Colorado, if state revenues decline here the
> >government can call on the rainy day funds accumulated during the good
> >times to maintain state spending. Also, as in Colorado, the legislature
> >and citizens can vote to override the limits in the future.
> >
> >The projected $2.2 billion that Oregon�?Ts Rainy Day ballot
> >measure might keep from being spent over the next two years is being
> >portrayed as a "loss"? by opponents of the measure. They want voters
> >to believe that such a large amount of money will starve essential state
> >services. What they fail to acknowledge is that this money still will be
> >collected, just not spent right away. Also, the $2.2 billion should be
> >compared to the state's All Funds budget (currently over $42 billion)
> >rather than to the General Fund (currently almost $12 billion).
> >
> >The legislature will have wide discretion in how it applies the
> >amendment's limit on total spending, and it will have no explicit limits
> >on the General Fund. Legislators thus could make spending adjustments
> >that would largely hold harmless budget items such as education, human
> >services, and public safety which make up over 90 percent of the General
> >Fund.
> >
> >Both Oregon's Rainy Day Amendment and TABOR base their limits on growth
> >of state population and inflation. But beyond that, Oregon's proposal
> >gives the state more latitude to preserve excess revenues in a rainy day
> >fund, rather than return them to taxpayers. Opponents of the measure
> >today likely will be the first to argue for keeping those excess
> >revenues if it passes in November.
> >
> >Sustainability is such a big concept in Oregon that it should be applied
> >to government growth as well as to the environment. Oregon's All Funds
> >budget grew twice as fast as the combined increase in population and
> >inflation over the past ten years, clearly not a sustainable path.
> >Opponents of the Rainy Day Amendment have the burden to explain why
> >state government should be allowed to grow faster than the private
> >sector. Oregon's tax revenues are highly variable from year to year
> >because of our reliance on income and capital gains taxes. Programs
> >begun at the height of a boom cannot be continued during a recession
> >except through tax hikes or borrowing. Opponents of the Rainy Day
> >Amendment have the burden to explain how better to cushion future
> >economic downturns if state government continues to immediately spend
> >every dime that comes in the door.
> >
> >The Rainy Day Amendment offers the best features of the Colorado
> >limitation, which led to strong economic growth during the boom, while
> >avoiding the worst features that kept Colorado from easily adjusting to
> >the bust. Oregonians who want their government to be fiscally
> >responsible should seriously consider the opportunity it presents.
> Oh my gosh...a ballot initiative signed by thousands of Oregon
> citizens seeking to reign in government spending...and all the far
> left extremist and unions are upset.
> Well....not all unions...just those unions who get there money from
> government workers.
>
> lordy lordy  poor old government with it's million dollar light rails
> and jails that are built and not used...and government with screwed up
> tram deals.
>
> are the voters gonna be frightened away by the doom and gloom from
> these fake unions?
>
> you think supporters of this ballot measure will be bombed...recall
> that Bill Sizemore's political office was bombed. Will the lefties get
> who next?

Didn't the sheriff's office say they thought he'd bombed his own office to
destroy records so he wouldn't have to produce them as a defendant later?

There was something like that going on. I don't recall exactly.

Curt

<lorad474@cs.com> wrote in message
news:1156544117.112057.123850@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> Paul J. Berg wrote:
> > What if Oregon could enjoy the fastest economic growth rate of any state
> > over the next five years? What if, over the next two years, Oregon could
> > build a rainy day fund in excess of $2 billion to help cushion
> > inevitable economic downturns?
> >
> > The first scenario above is what actually happened in Colorado from 1995
> > through 2000, the first five years of its citizen-imposed spending
> > limitation, known there as TABOR, or Taxpayer Bill of Rights. The second
> > scenario is what forecasters predict will happen here over the next two
> > years if Oregonians pass a spending limitation on the November ballot
> > known as the Rainy Day Amendment.
>
> Geez...
> You Oregonians still talking politics?
>
> Speaking of rainy days..
> You've got about one more month before the six-month monsoon starts
> again.
> Get outside and enjoy that glorious sunshine while you can - and leave
> the politics for the doom and gloomy season.

Thanks for the reality check.

Band has two shows tomorrow, and next weekend I go hang gliding for three
days. Woo hoo! Sun!

Curt

"Curt" <cje@hevanet.com> wrote:

> 
> "Don Homuth" <dhomuth1@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:nmore2pmdrufentcfk7uih6qfgk6hlohku@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 00:06:23 GMT, Lobby Dosser
>> <lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>> >Don Homuth <dhomuth1@comcast.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 23:32:29 GMT, Lobby Dosser
>> >> <lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>Don Homuth <dhomuth1@comcast.net> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> The folks elected don't invent the problems.  In fact, they'd as
>> >>>> lief not have them in the first place.  They didn't invent the
>> >>>> need for law enforcement, courts, public health, public
>> >>>> infrastructure or a panoply of other needs that The People have
>> >>>> declared are important.
>> >>>
>> >>>Did the majority of Americans clamor for Food Stamps?
>> >>
>> >> The grocery industry did, as did the folks handing out commodities
>> >> -- which were always a labor-intensive and therefore Expensive
>> >> matter to deal with.  Food Stamps, it turns out, were the least
>> >> expensive and most cost-effective way to deal with the entire
>> >> Hunger issue -- which was and remains real in many places.
>> >>
>> >> The commodities, in turn, derived from the demand from various
>> >> food industry sectors for price supports.
>> >
>> >The question was: Did the majority of Americans clamor for Food
>> >Stamps? 
>>
>> The key players in the food industry certainly did.  Most Murkens
>> weren't aware of them.
> 
> I could be wrong here but it seems I've read that when that program
> came around, it was popular. Wasn't it one of those Great Society
> things? We were gonna whip poverty, blah blah.. ?

War on Poverty. Something we can all blame LBJ for. IIRC, he was the 
first. Since the we've had wars on drugs, illiteracy (jeez I hope I 
spelled that right), homelessness, terrorism, and all sorts of other 
nonsense like tooth decay and nose picking.

"Curt" <cje@hevanet.com> wrote:

> 
> <Dan S. Milagros> wrote in message
> news:aeque2le0fqnp0t51phse852taidk4sada@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 08:11:24 -0700, pjberg@webtv.net (Paul J. Berg)
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >What if Oregon could enjoy the fastest economic growth rate of any
>> >state over the next five years? What if, over the next two years,
>> >Oregon could build a rainy day fund in excess of $2 billion to help
>> >cushion inevitable economic downturns?
>> >
>> >The first scenario above is what actually happened in Colorado from
>> >1995 through 2000, the first five years of its citizen-imposed
>> >spending limitation, known there as TABOR, or Taxpayer Bill of
>> >Rights. The second scenario is what forecasters predict will happen
>> >here over the next two years if Oregonians pass a spending
>> >limitation on the November ballot known as the Rainy Day Amendment.
>> >
>> >Tax and expenditure limitations are on the books in some 30 states,
>> >keeping the size of government in check through limiting either
>> >state revenue or spending. They generally do so by tying government
>> >growth to either the growth of personal income or to a combination
>> >of inflation plus population growth. Inflation plus population
>> >growth has historically been more consistent and less volatile than
>> >the growth of personal income, which can fluctuate widely.
>> >
>> >Colorado's TABOR amendment is actually quite different from the
>> >proposed Oregon Rainy Day Amendment. TABOR limits growth in both
>> >state and local government revenue. It requires that revenue above
>> >the limitation be returned to taxpayers, which worked well during
>> >the economic boom of the late 1990s, but which put downward pressure
>> >on government budgets during the bust that occurred in the early
>> >part of this decade. This so-called ratchet down effect caused
>> >Colorado voters to suspend TABOR for five years beginning last
>> >November. 
>> >
>> >Oregon's Rainy Day proposal limits not revenue, but expenditures. It
>> >applies only to the state, not to local governments. Revenue
>> >collected above the limitation can either be kept in a rainy day
>> >fund or returned to taxpayers at the legislature's discretion.
>> >Oregon's proposal has no ratchet down mechanism.
>> >
>> >In fact, unlike in Colorado, if state revenues decline here the
>> >government can call on the rainy day funds accumulated during the
>> >good times to maintain state spending. Also, as in Colorado, the
>> >legislature and citizens can vote to override the limits in the
>> >future. 
>> >
>> >The projected $2.2 billion that Oregon�?Ts Rainy Day ballot
>> >measure might keep from being spent over the next two years is being
>> >portrayed as a "loss"? by opponents of the measure. They want voters
>> >to believe that such a large amount of money will starve essential
>> >state services. What they fail to acknowledge is that this money
>> >still will be collected, just not spent right away. Also, the $2.2
>> >billion should be compared to the state's All Funds budget
>> >(currently over $42 billion) rather than to the General Fund
>> >(currently almost $12 billion). 
>> >
>> >The legislature will have wide discretion in how it applies the
>> >amendment's limit on total spending, and it will have no explicit
>> >limits on the General Fund. Legislators thus could make spending
>> >adjustments that would largely hold harmless budget items such as
>> >education, human services, and public safety which make up over 90
>> >percent of the General Fund.
>> >
>> >Both Oregon's Rainy Day Amendment and TABOR base their limits on
>> >growth of state population and inflation. But beyond that, Oregon's
>> >proposal gives the state more latitude to preserve excess revenues
>> >in a rainy day fund, rather than return them to taxpayers. Opponents
>> >of the measure today likely will be the first to argue for keeping
>> >those excess revenues if it passes in November.
>> >
>> >Sustainability is such a big concept in Oregon that it should be
>> >applied to government growth as well as to the environment. Oregon's
>> >All Funds budget grew twice as fast as the combined increase in
>> >population and inflation over the past ten years, clearly not a
>> >sustainable path. Opponents of the Rainy Day Amendment have the
>> >burden to explain why state government should be allowed to grow
>> >faster than the private sector. Oregon's tax revenues are highly
>> >variable from year to year because of our reliance on income and
>> >capital gains taxes. Programs begun at the height of a boom cannot
>> >be continued during a recession except through tax hikes or
>> >borrowing. Opponents of the Rainy Day Amendment have the burden to
>> >explain how better to cushion future economic downturns if state
>> >government continues to immediately spend every dime that comes in
>> >the door. 
>> >
>> >The Rainy Day Amendment offers the best features of the Colorado
>> >limitation, which led to strong economic growth during the boom,
>> >while avoiding the worst features that kept Colorado from easily
>> >adjusting to the bust. Oregonians who want their government to be
>> >fiscally responsible should seriously consider the opportunity it
>> >presents. 
>> Oh my gosh...a ballot initiative signed by thousands of Oregon
>> citizens seeking to reign in government spending...and all the far
>> left extremist and unions are upset.
>> Well....not all unions...just those unions who get there money from
>> government workers.
>>
>> lordy lordy  poor old government with it's million dollar light rails
>> and jails that are built and not used...and government with screwed
>> up tram deals.
>>
>> are the voters gonna be frightened away by the doom and gloom from
>> these fake unions?
>>
>> you think supporters of this ballot measure will be bombed...recall
>> that Bill Sizemore's political office was bombed. Will the lefties
>> get who next?
> 
> Didn't the sheriff's office say they thought he'd bombed his own
> office to destroy records so he wouldn't have to produce them as a
> defendant later?

You think the sheriff's office would risk the suit?
 
> 
> There was something like that going on. I don't recall exactly.
> 
> Curt
> 
> 
>