What's the best way to strengthen the dollar?

[KEVWYO]

Originally Posted by ducttape2

Why do you have to beg the government in the first place? It is proof that the government has too much power. Last check, there are plenty of trees in OR and WA. It is government restrictions that prevent us from using our resources.

There is government restrictions NOW because of the unregulated cutting that occurred 30 years ago. The greenie enviromentalists through all their lawsuits caused the pendulum to swing the other way. I agree NOW there is too much regulation. The Feds in an effort to offest lost timber revenues stepped up to provide "county payments". Now they don't want to continue the payments to offset lost timber revenues and yet they won't let us back in the forests to manage a renewable and sustainable resource with a modicum of regulation. For timber dependent communities such as mine you are damned if you do and damned if you don't.

[AZXD]

This is too funny.
The people of you state via complacency were broad-sided by the greenies and gave control to the Feds, and now you want it back.

I guess that's why the origins of this country were established in a way that should have retained power at the state level.

You have given us a very good example of what can occur when a state gives up it's rights and turns control of it's destiny over to the Federal Government.
Totally freak'n awesome.

Why are you even posting in this thread ??
I stated my solution, and you replied "Well you lost me but that's typical for me" and then followed it up with the little RAZZ smiley. I have no clue what the smiley was intended to accomplish, but hey if you got lost over a few words ... Perhaps you should take up my suggestion and do a little research before you come back to this thread and provide examples of what is wrong with government, and how to strengthen the dollar.

Bottom line, you are right. There is a problem. The generation before me, and possible you, screwed Oregon's logging industry by relinquishing control.

Do you remember the federally mandated 55mph speed limit. It's imposition required threats to remove federal highway funding from any state that did not comply with the mandate. Do you no what caused the 55mph limits to be removed ?? The states told the Fed's to get stuffed. That's right, they said fine we don't want your funding, we'll figure out a way to take care of our own roads.
The Fed's backed down. Think about it!!!

Did you research the PetroDollar Warfare that we are loosing ???
I didn't think so.
It's all out there on the Internet, you can find a quick overview, but to truly comprehend it will take more than a few hours.

Have fun with the research and thanks for the fine example of what happens when states give up their rights to the Federal Government.
But really, I'm at a loss as to how your post has much of anything to do with strengthening the Dollar. It's more of a Boo-Hoo the Fed's screwed my state because we let them. That's about the only damned thing I read. My state was damned stupid, and KEVWYO is upset.

Originally Posted by KEVWYO

There is government restrictions NOW because of the unregulated cutting that occurred 30 years ago. The greenie enviromentalists through all their lawsuits caused the pendulum to swing the other way. I agree NOW there is too much regulation. The Feds in an effort to offest lost timber revenues stepped up to provide "county payments". Now they don't want to continue the payments to offset lost timber revenues and yet they won't let us back in the forests to manage a renewable and sustainable resource with a modicum of regulation. For timber dependent communities such as mine you are damned if you do and damned if you don't.

[KEVWYO]

Originally Posted by AZXD

This is too funny.
The people of you state via complacency were broad-sided by the greenies and gave control to the Feds, and now you want it back.

I guess that's why the origins of this country were established in a way that should have retained power at the state level.

You have given us a very good example of what can occur when a state gives up it's rights and turns control of it's destiny over to the Federal Government.
Totally freak'n awesome.

Why are you even posting in this thread ??
I stated my solution, and you replied "Well you lost me but that's typical for me" and then followed it up with the little RAZZ smiley. I have no clue what the smiley was intended to accomplish, but hey if you got lost over a few words ... Perhaps you should take up my suggestion and do a little research before you come back to this thread and provide examples of what is wrong with government, and how to strengthen the dollar.

Bottom line, you are right. There is a problem. The generation before me, and possible you, screwed Oregon's logging industry by relinquishing control.

Do you remember the federally mandated 55mph speed limit. It's imposition required threats to remove federal highway funding from any state that did not comply with the mandate. Do you no what caused the 55mph limits to be removed ?? The states told the Fed's to get stuffed. That's right, they said fine we don't want your funding, we'll figure out a way to take care of our own roads.
The Fed's backed down. Think about it!!!

Did you research the PetroDollar Warfare that we are loosing ???
I didn't think so.
It's all out there on the Internet, you can find a quick overview, but to truly comprehend it will take more than a few hours.

Have fun with the research and thanks for the fine example of what happens when states give up their rights to the Federal Government.
But really, I'm at a loss as to how your post has much of anything to do with strengthening the Dollar. It's more of a Boo-Hoo the Fed's screwed my state because we let them. That's about the only damned thing I read. My state was damned stupid, and KEVWYO is upset.

I mean this in a non-condescending way: just as you want me to research some petro-warfare something or another I would ask you to research the timber issue that someone else brought into the thread as an example of where government regulation has a place. Obviously you know next to nothing about the timber issues in the Pac Northwest ... most outside of this region don't. That's not to slam you it's just that you can't know this issue unless you have lived in and around it. I am sure there are issues in your region I couldn't possibly know anything about.

Oregon didn't give up it's rights to it's resources. Over half of Oregon is owned by the Feds. Wasn't Oregon's to begin with. All national forests are owned by the Feds. The Fed's giveth and now they taketh away.

By the way the "you lost me" comment and RAZZ smiley was me and some self depricating humor. It's tough to get that feel on a internet forum. I really didn't grasp what you were saying.

I started this thread asking some sincere questions ... wondering what others who contribute in this section think. I hope that's OK with you. As they thread progressed I asked other honest questions. At any rate you seem to feel the need to hammer me ad nauseum. You seem to need to know "why are you posting". I guess just like you it's because I am a member and I can. Not sure why but if your hammering me at every turn feeds your need to be a super duper internet debater then at least I'll understand your motivations.

have a nice night.

[AZXD]

Originally Posted by KEVWYO

have a nice night.

OK!
I'm sorry I stepped over the boundary. Yet it appears I am not alone in this discusion, just perhaps a little more bold in my assertions.

I'll even look into the Pac Northwest timber industry and it's history. But I'll also ask why. If my understanding is wrong and your's is right. The Fed's owned it from the start, so why get upset over the Fed's utilizing resources as they see fit.
I mean really, Oregon is not a welfare state, is it ??

I'll look, I'll look. But I don't think I'll find much.

[KEVWYO]

Originally Posted by AZXD

The Fed's owned it from the start, so why get upset over the Fed's utilizing resources as they see fit.
I mean really, Oregon is not a welfare state, is it ??

The Fed's have made Oregon a welfare state in a matter of speaking. Believe me I wish the Fed's would get the hell out of the way in this matter so that Oregon could make it's own way.

As best as I can and as succinctly as I can I'll try to explain ...

As I mentioned more than half of Oregon is owned by the federal government. That is to say most of this federal ownership is in the form of national forests. back in the day the Fed's let timber businesses do their thing and in the process some of that money (used to be a huge amount of cash) stayed in Oregon cofers and helps fund things like schools and county government and services. Cool ... Oregon is fending for itself in this situation.

Now, mr asshat enviromentalist comes along and ties up every timber sale in court for years on end. Gotta save an owl or a little bird .... gotta save this stand of old growth, blah, blah, blah. This causes a process to start where the Fed's decide to intervene, after all they own the national forests that the timber sales are on, and that the Spotted Owl is in, and the Marbled Murelet is in, and that 400 year old stand of old growth .... you get the picture. So the Fed's say no more logging because of these issues. This is bad because now Oregon is unable to fend for itself. The Fed's realize this and step into the mix and provide economic relief to make up for the lost money from lack of timber receipts. Fine. We Oregonians by and large (not all) would rather use this resource in a sustainable manner for jobs and to provide income for the state but if the Fed's say no then our only recourse is to depend on the Federal economic assistance.

Now the Fed's (actually Bush) is saying no to the continued funding because the mandate for the program has expired. Legislators are trying to add on the funding to the war spending bills but Bush is kind of doing his own line item veto. It's war money only and no add on's from his perspective (this is my perception of what is happening).

So now Oregon isn't allowed to cut timber to make it's own way and the Fed money is ready to disappear. Many counties and communities in the region are going to be "hurtin for certain" very soon.

Tying this all back to the post that spoke of the need for federal regulation ... Had the timber industry had better governmental regulation starting some 30-40 years ago and that regulation been maintained at a reasonable and intelligent level perhaps Oregon and the region might not be in the rock and a hard place situation we are in now.

From where I sit there are times when federal regulation can be helpful. Like many on this forum, most of the time I don't want the Fed's help. But there are times and situations where I think fed regulation may be of benefit and I feel that Zen did a very good job of explaining why ... much better than I could. If memory serves he was talking about regulation and how it helps to even the ride so to speak. Somehow I tied that regulation example into something that hit close to home and that was the timber industry.

So, AZXD .... if you want to hammer me for using a totally unrelated example to support the notion of intelligent and appropriate use of Federal regulation then I guess I just gave you another chance. I just hope you understand where I am coming from a little better.

[trik396]

The federal government is the largest landowner in this country so it isn't just Oregon that the feds have a stranglehold on. As to the timber situation there, I cannot comment because I do not know. I'll have to take your word on the subject.
On another note, companies such as Plum Creek Timber, which is second in land ownership only to the feds, and Potlach are excellent companies to own if timber is your thing. Timberwest is an excellent Canadian timber company. Investing in these companies is an easy way to be a landowner without the hassles of being a landlord.

[trik396]

The federal government is the largest landowner in this country so it isn't just Oregon that the feds have a stranglehold on. As to the timber situation there, I cannot comment because I do not know. I'll have to take your word on the subject.
On another note, companies such as Plum Creek Timber, which is second in land ownership only to the feds, and Potlach are excellent companies to own if timber is your thing. Timberwest is an excellent Canadian timber company. Investing in these companies is an easy way to be a landowner without the hassles of being a landlord.

[AZXD]

So, by doing nothing toward developing alternatives to the logging industry, that group placed itself on the endangered species list. Really, you make this to easy. I'm not even sure why I should do any research into the Pac Northwest timber industry. You have stated the obvious, and went so far as to state that in your opinion, Oregon is a welfare state.

Sorry, Oregon needs to be cut off. It sounds like the logging industry of Oregon was aware of this issue, yet people chose to live with hope that the subsidy would continue forever.

The story reminds me of those who said automation would displace workers within the auto industry. Some chose to update skills and thus stayed above water, while others hoped their union rep's could cut a deal and remain employed until retirement.

The logging industry was given such a deal, but people chose to hangout in the hopes that the deal would be renewed.

How much growth did Oregon have within the service and technology fields while the subsidy was in place ??

Obviously not enough, or people would not be upset that their welfare has been taken away.

Yes, it is sad that the greenies were able to implement legislation that prevented the logging industry of Oregon from managing it's industry. But it's not the greenies fault that nothing was planned beyond a thanks for the check, can we have another method of job growth and retraining.

Originally Posted by KEVWYO

The Fed's have made Oregon a welfare state in a matter of speaking. Believe me I wish the Fed's would get the hell out of the way in this matter so that Oregon could make it's own way.

As best as I can and as succinctly as I can I'll try to explain ...

As I mentioned more than half of Oregon is owned by the federal government. That is to say most of this federal ownership is in the form of national forests. back in the day the Fed's let timber businesses do their thing and in the process some of that money (used to be a huge amount of cash) stayed in Oregon cofers and helps fund things like schools and county government and services. Cool ... Oregon is fending for itself in this situation.

Now, mr asshat enviromentalist comes along and ties up every timber sale in court for years on end. Gotta save an owl or a little bird .... gotta save this stand of old growth, blah, blah, blah. This causes a process to start where the Fed's decide to intervene, after all they own the national forests that the timber sales are on, and that the Spotted Owl is in, and the Marbled Murelet is in, and that 400 year old stand of old growth .... you get the picture. So the Fed's say no more logging because of these issues. This is bad because now Oregon is unable to fend for itself. The Fed's realize this and step into the mix and provide economic relief to make up for the lost money from lack of timber receipts. Fine. We Oregonians by and large (not all) would rather use this resource in a sustainable manner for jobs and to provide income for the state but if the Fed's say no then our only recourse is to depend on the Federal economic assistance.

Now the Fed's (actually Bush) is saying no to the continued funding because the mandate for the program has expired. Legislators are trying to add on the funding to the war spending bills but Bush is kind of doing his own line item veto. It's war money only and no add on's from his perspective (this is my perception of what is happening).

So now Oregon isn't allowed to cut timber to make it's own way and the Fed money is ready to disappear. Many counties and communities in the region are going to be "hurtin for certain" very soon.

Tying this all back to the post that spoke of the need for federal regulation ... Had the timber industry had better governmental regulation starting some 30-40 years ago and that regulation been maintained at a reasonable and intelligent level perhaps Oregon and the region might not be in the rock and a hard place situation we are in now.

From where I sit there are times when federal regulation can be helpful. Like many on this forum, most of the time I don't want the Fed's help. But there are times and situations where I think fed regulation may be of benefit and I feel that Zen did a very good job of explaining why ... much better than I could. If memory serves he was talking about regulation and how it helps to even the ride so to speak. Somehow I tied that regulation example into something that hit close to home and that was the timber industry.

So, AZXD .... if you want to hammer me for using a totally unrelated example to support the notion of intelligent and appropriate use of Federal regulation then I guess I just gave you another chance. I just hope you understand where I am coming from a little better.

[Ride the Lightning]

Yes, I advocate not helping other countries advance themselves in the world. There is only so much wealth that the world has to offer, and the more of it that moves out of the US the more we will be hurting. It might be big business that packed their bags and moved to greener pastures, but it is the federal government who paved the highway out of town.

There is no such thing as a "little" federal regulation. If the timber industry had received a "little" regualtion 30,40, 50 or however many years ago, where do you think they would be now? They'd be so bogged down in regulation they couldn't cut lumber anyway. Can anyone give me an example of an industry with a "little" regulation? Look at the US auto industry. For decades they were on their own and did very well. The government stepped with crash standards and emissions regulations and have never looked back. Every year the government adds new regulations. They have gone so far as to establish entire government entities that do nothing but dream up new rules and enforce old ones. That takes people, so they hire a small army to do all these jobs. Those regulations require new technologies to be developed, which also will require regulation because they have to meet the regulations of the parent industry. Before long the government is married to these entities because they can't just ditch them and fire the tens of thousands of people they hired. You will find this to be the case with almost any industry that has failed to police themselves. Petroleum, aviation, energy, you name it, the government has killed or seriously injured it. The only case I can think of that the government stepped away from regulation was in 1978(?) when they deregulated the airline industry and brought it back from the brink of death. Unfortunately for the airlines they never fixed their stupid business practices and are now killing themselves. Oh wait! The government has their hand in the airline cookie jar again, so maybe it isn't entirely the fault of the airlines.

Regarding the timber industry, I have to ask a few questions. During the boom of the timber industry, where did the money go? Was it spent wisely, or just squandered on frivolous crap because it was there? I'm guessing the latter. What prevented individuals, as well as the local and state governments, from realizing that they were going to run out of opportunity? I grew up in a farming community and everyone knew what they needed to do today to protect their livelihood 20 years down the road. What makes lumber different from every other industry with regard to having a meaningful plan for the future? Why couldn't communities that are now staring death in the face have invested in attracting other industries to the area when they had the money to do so? You can point a lot of fingers when an industry fails and takes a community with it, but who is really to blame over the long haul? You can't blame the lumber company for the citizen's failure to plan.

[KEVWYO]

Originally Posted by Ride the Lightning

Why couldn't communities that are now staring death in the face have invested in attracting other industries to the area when they had the money to do so? You can point a lot of fingers when an industry fails and takes a community with it, but who is really to blame over the long haul? You can't blame the lumber company for the citizen's failure to plan.

You can't force businesses to re-locate. Most defintely our county and my community have tried to lure businesses here but again you can't force them. In the last 2 months a business that had purchased land on which to make a luxury bus/coach/rv manufactury center pulled out. Didn't bother to tell anyone ..... just missed a payment to the county. That's how the county found out. About 1-2 years some type of car manufacturing (I wish I could remember the make .. japanese or korean I think) was poised to make a manufacturing plant in my county. That also went elsewhere for reasons unknown to me. It's not like we're sitting back just wanting the Fed to keep us afloat.

By the way, lack of regulation results in things like the Savings and Loan of the 80's and our foreclosure mess now.