Online subscriber? Please Log In
  

Need Help? | Forgot Your Password?

Letters to the Editor - April 26, 2013

Apr 26, 2013 | 131 Comments


Only online subscribers may access this article. Subscribe online by clicking here. Already a subscriber, please .

Would you like to comment on this article?

Only online subscribers may comment on articles. Click here to see how you can subscribe.
Already a subscriber, please

Note: Some articles do not accept comments at all.

Comments

10:49 am - Sun, May 5 2013
troy prouty said:
posted " fishing today"


I can't afford a fishing Pole.

No that isn't it. I dont' fish anymore. Besides I'm sort of resting my wrist still, why at the same time hoping to find a way to clean without using it.

troy*
11:14 am - Sun, May 5 2013
kona said:


Your definition of "the problem" is ok for you, but not many other people.

Your definition .... "Inherit it (wealth) mostly, and make sure that the others are oppressed so they can't take what they have by keeping power through policies, investing and political action.. they do things like reduce taxes for themselves, cut services, and help direct policy that increase cost for things that the poor and middle income people would have to work twice as hard to get."

I am certainly not in the 10 percent you refer, but my attitude about wealth, or economic status, isn't close to your evaluation. People generally get what they are willing to work toward. There is no other variable that is as meaningful. The problem is that many people waste their childhood and play catch up the rest of their lives.
11:16 am - Sun, May 5 2013
kona said:


Your definition of "the problem" is ok for you, but not many other people.

Your definition .... "Inherit it (wealth) mostly, and make sure that the others are oppressed so they can't take what they have by keeping power through policies, investing and political action.. they do things like reduce taxes for themselves, cut services, and help direct policy that increase cost for things that the poor and middle income people would have to work twice as hard to get."

I am certainly not in the 10 percent you refer, but my attitude about wealth, or economic status, isn't close to your evaluation. People generally get what they are willing to work toward. There is no other variable that is as meaningful. The problem is that many people waste their childhood and play catch up the rest of their lives.
11:20 am - Sun, May 5 2013
kona said:


Your definition of "the problem" is ok for you, but not many other people.

Your definition .... "Inherit it (wealth) mostly, and make sure that the others are oppressed so they can't take what they have by keeping power through policies, investing and political action.. they do things like reduce taxes for themselves, cut services, and help direct policy that increase cost for things that the poor and middle income people would have to work twice as hard to get."

I am certainly not in the 10 percent you refer, but my attitude about wealth, or economic status, isn't close to your evaluation. People generally get what they are willing to work toward. There is no other variable that is as meaningful. The problem is that many people waste their childhood and play catch up the rest of their lives.
05:26 am - Mon, May 6 2013
troy prouty said:
"You can have great wealth in the hands of a few, or you can have Democracy, but you can never have both"

Troy*
10:45 am - Mon, May 6 2013
Fletch said:
I caught several fish this weekend. It was truly awesome!
11:00 am - Mon, May 6 2013
Fletch said:
So how are we going to fix the PERS situation?
11:26 am - Mon, May 6 2013
kona said:
I don't think it will get "fixed". For the last three decades the people in Oregon have been sleeping (apathetic) while the unions have boiler plated the issue. There is too little that the courts will allow to be significantly changed. PERS will economically drag down the State of Oregon. All of the newly hired public sector employees will pay the price (fewer jobs and hours) for the extravagance afforded to many PERS Tier I employees. Oregon students will pay the price and public sector services will be reduced.
12:38 pm - Tue, May 7 2013
Fletch said:
Maybe HB 3371 can help with 40% going to schools.
03:53 pm - Tue, May 7 2013
kona said:
Another disaster to fix a disaster?
04:48 pm - Tue, May 7 2013
Fletch said:
Some how I knew you were going to say that. "God damn stoners."
It's not all bad Kona, your going to see when the state runs it through, not much is going to change other then copious amounts of money moving into state coffers with the state looking for more. Jobs created, establishments created, and law enforcement pissed off even more then usual. Some more then others no doubt.
The media will have a field day, then all will just go on just as it has been for ever.

06:17 pm - Tue, May 7 2013
troy prouty said:

Posted "but my attitude about wealth, or economic status, isn't close to your evaluation"

That is obvious.

The bottom line is in for an economy to be stable, one must have money to move... the more people that have money, the more stable it becomes now and in the future. If I tell everyone we are going to focus on college to bring about change to our future for example and yet nobody can afford college, little will be done.

It appears to me, you think it will just work itself out. In some case, you are correct, when things get so bad it tends to level the field so to speak , but the damage and the progress will be lost.

My approach is simple, share the wealth. Settle for less so others can have more and stablize the economy and our future. Monopolies certainly don't benefit anyone, especially the economy. Stop giving special treatment to some companies and not others. I don't think there is anything wrong with equality.

I would rather have 100 people give $10.00 to charity each then one person give $100.00 to charity. Because of two factors. 100 people can will have more money to spend outside that $10.00 they give, and the more of them that have more than $10.00 might be less charity is needed.

now. we are done with economics 101.

troy*
07:40 pm - Tue, May 7 2013
kona said:

Fletch,

I can still remember how much of a liability users were in Vietnam. The effect on job performance was negative. Not the same as alcohol, but it wasn't enhancing. I can't condone the use.
07:50 pm - Tue, May 7 2013
kona said:
1) You said, "My approach is simple, share the wealth."

How? Do we just take from the "haves" and give to the "have nots"?

2) You said, "Monopolies certainly don't benefit anyone, especially the economy."

That is mostly true. That is why we have guidelines preventing monopolies. Do you have an example of a monopoly that is affecting you?

3) You said, "I would rather have 100 people give $10.00 to charity each than one person give $100.00 to charity."

I would also if I were that charity, $1,000 is always better than $100. That is "economics 101".
04:11 am - Wed, May 8 2013
troy prouty said:
Monopolies.

You bet... Let me start with the biggest..

Democrats and Republicans.

Then we can probably move to TV.. and Cable VS Dish after that...

Phone companies after that..

Natural Gas Pipelines/Power companies after that.

Waste Management

Railcars after that..

Refining plants .......


etc..etc..

then it even gets worse with companies purchasing other companies and dominating not one market, but several. We can see how coal producing plants cost went up owned by Mr. Buffet, because the cost of rail went up (owned by Buffet). In fact if you want a real eye opener. Two people's entire wealth is equal to 43% of the population according to Reuters. Gates and Buffets. David Johnston (Reuters Reporter) Recently published a book called Fine Print showing the effect of monopolies. They estimate it cost us about $650.00 a year in extra cost per person.


See one again, you believe only one or two might be a Monopoly. I'm here to tell you the true meaning of the word, is having the ability to keep little to no competition within a certain area or field of play that makes a Monopoly. this is why democrats and republicans makes my list. they get equal funding, why the other groups do not, causing an inequality which allows them more control. A perfect example.

troy*
04:13 am - Wed, May 8 2013
troy prouty said:
Here is something I thought would fit that was brought up last year at the world affairs council (Global Economic Session)

"Americans show comparatively greater faith in the meritocracy of their economy then do citizens of other countries and therefore tend to be more accepting of income and wealth inequality. The data shows that this faith is misplaced and the acceptance of inequality is misguided as shown clearly, Americans vastly overestimate the equality of their system. The survey asking them to estimate the current distribution of wealth in the U.S. and present their ideal level of equality showed a populace that stubbornly over estimates how equal its society is and yearns for a level of wealth distribution even more equal than the level of equality it mistakenly perceives.
This suggest something more like a “religious” belief in mobility than a willingness to look at the facts"
08:23 am - Wed, May 8 2013
kona said:

Your examples on "monopolies" are off based and very inaccurate by the very definition of a monopoly ("exclusive control of a commodity or service in a particular market"). A company can be a leader in a market and easily not be a monopoly. Every company strives to be the leader in a particular market. That is what leads to increased productivity which is an important ingredient for any business. We have strong laws preventing monopolies.
08:33 am - Wed, May 8 2013
kona said:
So, I'll ask again.

You said, "My approach is simple, share the wealth."

How? Do we just take from the "haves" and give to the "have nots"?

Are you suggesting that we "share the wealth" without the wealth being earned? Do we share the wealth regardless of ambition, intelligence, education or individual decisions?

Neither Gates nor Buffet inherited their wealth. It was earned. Additionally, they have and are giving almost all of their wealth away.
08:46 am - Wed, May 8 2013
WorkingforaLiving said:
kona-

Great effort and so much patience. I am in total agreement with you.

"Are you suggesting that we "share the wealth" without the wealth being earned? Do we share the wealth regardless of ambition, intelligence, education or individual decisions?"

Those two sentences right there speak volumes. There are those of us who live our lives that way and want to earn and be productive on our own and there are those that want to sit and collect and tell those that earn how much they should be able to keep. I actually know people who can flat out give a number as to what they think people should be able to keep. I think overall we are giving people. It's just that somewhere along the way the act of charity is being defined differently than what it was intended and people are starting to resent it. I'm in no way speaking of those truly in need who deserve a helping hand.

Obviously with a thread as long as this one we'll never be in agreement. So much of what you've said above is right on.

05:51 pm - Wed, May 8 2013
kona said:

WorkingforaLiving,

It is encouraging to know that there are others who realize the importance of self reliance. Each person has opportunity to shape the results in their life. It is important as you suggest for each person to be proactive.
05:22 am - Thu, May 9 2013
troy prouty said:
I think you both make a mistake that those with money earned it and those without money didn't earn it. I also think you make a mistake to let 10% control the interest of 90% of us.. so basically what you are saying is that 90% of the people in the U.S. is worthless? think you need to study oppresion a little bit more and start with education and work your way up. OR.. you can pick a rich guy and start there and work down to see the difference on it became and what obstacles there were. I can tell you that there are far greater obstacles for a person to become wealthy than a person born rich to stay wealthy. Think about it. I think you are both are totally wrong and part of the reason this country will eventually collapse.

troy*
05:25 am - Thu, May 9 2013
troy prouty said:
I guess I could have said Amen?

"religious” belief in mobility than a willingness to look at the facts"

Or fools..


wink..

troy*
05:59 am - Thu, May 9 2013
WorkingforaLiving said:
Think what you want. Your arguments are getting tiring and I think you made a lot more out the statement than was intended. You have an obsession it appears with wealth and corporations. You know nothing about me or what I think. I don't know what the 'religious' comment was about. You have no idea whether I'm religious or not. As I said in an earlier post - there are more important things to worry about and believe me with what's coming down in the next few years you should be worried.

Be thankful that there are those out there that take the risk and make the commitment to create jobs so others can work and provide for their families and just leave it at that.

07:32 am - Thu, May 9 2013
kona said:
So, I'll ask again.

You said, "My approach is simple, share the wealth."

How? Do we just take from the "haves" and give to the "have nots"?

Are you suggesting that we "share the wealth" without the wealth being earned? Do we share the wealth regardless of ambition, intelligence, education or individual decisions?

Neither Gates nor Buffet inherited their wealth. It was earned. Additionally, they have and are giving almost all of their wealth away.
08:20 am - Thu, May 9 2013
kona said:


1) You said, " I also think you make a mistake to let 10% control the interest of 90% of us."

Yes, that would be a mistake if that were actually happening. I certainly don't feel "controlled".

2) You said, "so basically what you are saying is that 90% of the people in the U.S. is worthless?"

No, that is totally a false assumption on your part.

3) You said, "I can tell you that there are far greater obstacles for a person to become wealthy than a person born rich to stay wealthy."

I can't disagree with that. That is life. It is easier for a horse to win the Kentucky Derby if its parents were endowed. It is easier for a sprinter to have a chance at the Olympics if parents were good athletes. It is an advantage for a child to excel in athletics if his/her parents were coaches. It is easier for a student to have access to colleges if parents were college graduates. Academic success is often correlated with parents academic success. A person has a good opportunity for wealth if parents influenced good decisions. That is life and it is nothing new. But that doesn't imply that the rest of the population doesn't have a chance at excellence or wealth.

4) You said, "I think you are both are totally wrong and part of the reason this country will eventually collapse."

That is your opinion, but I think self reliance and self determination is a key influence for quality of life in the U.S. "You reap what you sow", think about that.
12:45 pm - Thu, May 9 2013
Fletch said:
I use the term amen just to acknowledge agreement. Just like I might use "That's right" or "You knowz it."
Kona your right in the aspect of if your opportunity presents its self, and your capable of taking advantage of it and you don't, you better check yourself.
Troy, I'm pickn up what your layn down.
06:01 pm - Thu, May 9 2013
troy prouty said:
The U.S. right now reminds me of a frog in a pot of water that is bringing itself to a boil very slowly.

First of all. I never said that Rich people should hand over their money to people that don't want to work. Not even close. What I said is why can't they settle for less so others can have more. For example... Instead of increasing only their salary and decreasing their workers so they can have 3 fancy homes, 6 cars and who knows what else,. How about just two houses so the employees beneath can afford their medical expenses or send their kids to college, instead of stealing pensions and bankrupting the company leaving on a golden parachute. How about just Not. How about not getting a 1.3 Billion dollar bonus at the expense of those insured by denying procedures that might have saved their life?

Is that too much to ask? Or how about this one Kona. how about paying your taxes "Nike" so I along with other Oregonians don't have to pay yours for you!

Troy*
06:58 pm - Thu, May 9 2013
WorkingforaLiving said:
You have so many broad generalizations in your comments. And even though you don't think you are saying that you are. "They should settle for less so others can have more" - same thing basically. As someone said - thank goodness for the wealthy who buy the boats, planes, etc. so that people are employed to build them. Why don't you criticize the crooks in DC who write the tax laws and don't even follow them themselves? Isn't it amazing how many of these elected people came into office with not much and are suddenly millionaires? Don't even get me started on the healthcare disaster that's hitting us that they are exempted from along with many of the unions (who actually have a 10 year waiver).

I've been there where I didn't know how I would make it paycheck to paycheck and worked my way up to live comfortably. I do however resent the fact that my money goes to many who won't get off their butts to do the same for themselves. And to government universal fees charged in my bills that I did not authorize to go to causes I don't believe in.

Not all companies and corporations are crooks - that again is a generalization. I could give you many, many examples but I'm sure you wouldn't want to hear it.

As I said before - we will never all agree with the same things but we're all entitled to our opinions and can hopefully express them respectfully.
07:11 pm - Thu, May 9 2013
kona said:


You probably don't believe it, but Nike pays more taxes than you. You would do yourself a favor if you would extinguish your attitude about everyone who has more than you. There will always be some who have an easier life. Each person's situation in life is different. Happiness is not directly correlated to quantities of money.
08:00 pm - Thu, May 9 2013
troy prouty said:
There was this farmer that raised Hogs but had a problem.

The older and much larger hogs at feeding time would jump into the trough and refuse to let the smaller hog’s access to the food.

The farmer, stumped for a solution turned to others for help.

First he approached the Republicans. The Republicans replied that only the most fit should survive, so don’t do anything.

He then approached the Democrats. The Democrats replied that maybe he should put more feed into the trough and when the Hogs jump in, maybe some of it will spill out letting the smaller hogs to eat.

Not satisfied if either solution he asked Troy Prouty. Who simply replied “Remove the Hogs from the trough”

Wink..

Troy*
09:27 am - Fri, May 10 2013
Lulu said:
The disparity between the highest students in poor areas scoring no better than the lowest students in affluent areas, in my opinion, is direct correlated to family background. One group has far more access to books, museums, art, trips to historically significant places, sufficient physical space at home to study and parental involvement. The other frequently struggles with inadequate food, violence at home and in the neighborhood, crowded quarters with people too busy simply surviving to have enough energy left over to care. If you believe taking your kids to the casino on the weekend so they can play video games while you gamble is educational, you should never have had children.
Expecting teachers to reach equal academic benchmarks for these diverse groups is magical thinking and actually results in cheating by teaching to the tests administered in late spring.
There is another consideration, as well. A great number of teachers are dull, dogmatic, burned out, pedantic and have absolutely no imagination. They have no business in classrooms. And yet they remain, year after year.
The one piece of advice someone gave me on my first day of teaching remains true today: "Think of education as a war, and in every war there will be casualties."

© 1999- News-Register Publishing | © The Associated Press
The News-Register and NewsRegister.com are owned and operated by News-Register Publishing Co., P.O. Box 727, McMinnville, OR 97128.
All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Web design & powered by LVSYS