What's the best way to strengthen the dollar?

[Ride the Lightning]

Originally Posted by KEVWYO

You can't force businesses to re-locate.

Could you please point me to the place where I said you could? When times were good in lumber they should have made the place so attactive to other industries that they would be fools to go somewhere else. NOW is too late because they don't have the financial capability to do it. This all should have been done 30 years ago when the lumber industy could be used as leverage to get other industries there, not now when the lumber industry will scare them off.

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

No, stupidity has led us into that and stupidity is not fixable by government intervention no matter how hard they try. If the government stuck their nose in the mortgage industry none of us could afford a home becase getting a loan would cost too much.

[AZXD]

Yea, that's true. It's kind of like leading a horse to water.
I agree that you can't force a business to move. But you can provide incentives that cause them to leave the country, or in your case, leave the state and take advantage of the tax breaks offer elsewhere and a chance for growth.

A company left and didn't tell anyone. Simply amazing!!
Who's fault is that the companies, or the state/county/city that could not show an economic incentive for the company to stay ??

What else can you tell us about the inefficiencies of your local government ???
And you blame the Fed's for these problems. It kind of sounds like your state is not worth the investment. They have no managerial experience and to invest there is a sure way to loose money.

As a side note,
Are you intentionally avoiding responding to my counters to what you write, or what
Have fun with RTLightning
He seems to have you figured out.

Originally Posted by KEVWYO

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.

[ZenMachine]

For all the "experts" that do not live here, our forests in Oregon and the northwest are almost completely exhausted. There is anywhere from 1-5% of the original stands still left, many of them in wilderness areas and hard to to reach areas that would require large state and federal investment to provide access to logging companies. I do not support logging of these remaining stands because I view them as a kind of emergency reserve and secondly i think that 95% of the forests being logged should be enough for logging companies to sustain themselves on. That other 5% should be kept for future generations to enjoy and use. I and many other oregonians like to be able to hunt and otherwise use areas that that have not been completely transformed. I know a lot of people on here that live in the south and other places that are used to "hunting" on ranches and farmland other semi-wild places do not appreciate what it is like to stalk elk or deer through a truly wild patch of forest without roads and other hunters around every tree.

Where did all that money go? Into the hands of a very wealthy families is where. Some loggers and mill workers made decent money for a while, but these rich people from back east made off like bandits. They had the money to buy off washington politicians, mainly republicans like Reagan that opened the door to out and out looting of public resources. The corporate logging companies paid virtually nothing for timber leases, clearcut them and never replanted them as they are required to do by law and then absconded. Why, because they don't give two craps about the people here. Also, who paid for the infrastructure that these logging companies used to get their logs out of the woods? We did! If anything the corporations benefited from welfare, not the people here.

Now you can call me a commie if you want to because I believe in taking care of my own. What should have been done was to bar these massive companies from entering the market and instead given timber leases to small, local family logging outfits and told them, "this is your area and you cannot acquire more, if you log it off in two years for a quick buck then you're screwed, if you log it in a sustainable manner, you will make a good living and so will your kids and grandkids. You might not get wealthy, but your communities will continue to exist and you will never be without." In short, manage the forests to last indefinitely instead of pillaging them for a quick buck in the name of greed. By letting Weyerhauser and others in where did all our logs go? Japan.

Why should local loggers get priority over big business? One, we live here and our people had the sack to make the hard trip out here and build our communities out of a truly wild place. These companies are the modern day carpet baggers. As to the environmentalists, I do not agree with them, but they are really not to blame. They are a convenient scape goat that corporate loggers have pointed to as the reason for our problems. Our problem is that republican government officials sold us down the river in the 80s and they logged off all our best remaining timber, now it will take 80 years or better to rejuvenate those stands. To claim that we still have good forests shows that you have spent little actual time in the woods here. What we have left is immature second growth and third growth.

Oregon a "welfare state"? More baseless name calling. If by that you mean we have more freedom than the rest of the country that would be correct. We use referendums to make our many of our laws. If the terminally ill want doctor assistance to die, we allow that rather than letting big brother say no. If people with chronic pain and illness like cerebral paulsy want to smoke marijuana to ease their pain, we let them. Unlike other states we don't think it is polite to stick our nose in other people's business. We don't have endless suburbs and people up the bunghole like most of you are used to. We don't get cell phone reception when we are out hunting. Don't move here, trust me, you wouldn't like it.

[AZXD]

Right.
I'm stopping at the first couple of sentence.
The logging industry in Oregon could not manage it's natural resources, and the local government did not forsee what outsiders were doing until after contractual obligations were in place.

I agree! Your local loggers should have been given the priority, but IMO that doesn't make it a federal problem. It has been a local government problem and should remain a local government problem.

My states elected officials make stupid decisions, but I sure wouldn't expect the federal government to correct their mistakes. It's not the job of the Fed's to fix local problems that are the result of poor decision making.

So just how do you see this as a problem that requires a federal bailout ??

[ZenMachine]

How exactly are state governments supposed to regulate federal timber tracts that are the purview of the federal government? It was corruption at the federal level in the form of GOP politicians bought off by corporate logging lobbyists that caused the problem in the first place. So although the federal government caused the problem reducing BLM and Forest Service regulation of logging, they are not responsible? Right. Your argument makes tons of sense.

Sorry to burden you with reading a few paragraphs. I know in your world the one liners and sound bytes of newsmax and others seem to be adequate answers to problems. In the real world, complex issues demand semi-complex discussion and solutions. By responding to any and all arguments with simplistic "it's a welfare state" responses only shows your inability to formulate a coherent rebuttal or think in any terms beyond the ones you appropriate from neo-conservative news outlets.

[AZXD]

Ya know,
This thread is enlightening and scary at the same time.

If you can't figure out that local government is the problem with what has been stated about Oregon's logging industry .... How can you honestly say that someone like Obama is right for the Nation. You seem to be confused at the local government level, and I'm supposed to believe you understand the National level of government.

You guys are as scary as Obama.


You should be upset. You were sold out!
What did Obama promise the people of Oregon, anyway ??
Did he tell you he would right somekind of wrong by your local government ??

ETA:
To answer your last statement, KEVWYO called Oregon a welfare state. So ask someone else.
Myself, I just decided to agree with the statement.

[ZenMachine]

I don't think you understand, the federal government is in charge of giving out timber leases on federal timber land in Oregon. Not the state government. Is that hard to understand?

[Etta Place]

Originally Posted by ZenMachine

How exactly are state governments supposed to regulate federal timber tracts that are the purview of the federal government? It was corruption at the federal level in the form of GOP politicians bought off by corporate logging lobbyists that caused the problem in the first place. So although the federal government caused the problem reducing BLM and Forest Service regulation of logging, they are not responsible? Right. Your argument makes tons of sense.

Sorry to burden you with reading a few paragraphs. I know in your world the one liners and sound bytes of newsmax and others seem to be adequate answers to problems. In the real world, complex issues demand semi-complex discussion and solutions. By responding to any and all arguments with simplistic "it's a welfare state" responses only shows your inability to formulate a coherent rebuttal or think in any terms beyond the ones you appropriate from neo-conservative news outlets.

This is what I was going to question. How is the state or local government supposed to regulate what goes on in federal lands? Here in San Diego, the city would have to get permission from the federal government to do anything on Navy land, etc.

[AZXD]

Originally Posted by ZenMachine

I don't think you understand, the federal government is in charge of giving out timber leases on federal timber land in Oregon. Not the state government. Is that hard to understand?

So I'll admit I came into this part of the conversation late.
Can you explain how this has anything to do with strengthening the dollar ??
Can you explain how living in Oregon gives you the right to determine how the people of the nation should subsidize your state ??

Is this somehow tied to me stating that someone needs to tell the greenies to take a hike as we start using our natural resources ??
If that's the case, fine. But wasn't it just stated that most of Orgeon's resources have been depleted.

Besides, I was referring to energy resources when I made that statement. Not a few trees in one state.

The last time I checked, we were not dependant on another nation for our wood supply, and we sure as heck have not been subjected to market manipulations by foreign entities over wood products.

But back to your point,
"The federal government is in charge of giving out timber leases on federal timber land in Oregon" who attempts to get these resource allocations ??

Surely they don't just magically appear. Someone needs to ask/fight for the allocation. Isn't that a local/state request ??

[AZXD]

Originally Posted by Etta Place

This is what I was going to question. How is the state or local government supposed to regulate what goes on in federal lands? Here in San Diego, the city would have to get permission from the federal government to do anything on Navy land, etc.

Exactly my point. Someone has to get permission. Who does this and at what level of government do they work ??

Your example uses the city, and I agree. Therefore it is a local government issue, and if the request is not made or is done so in a haphazard way it is not the fault of the Federal Government.