From buckeye53 at aol.com  Fri Jan  1 02:53:06 2010
From: buckeye53 at aol.com (buckeye53 at aol.com)
Date: Fri, 01 Jan 2010 05:53:06 -0500
Subject: [Grovenet] Rose Bowl - Happy New Year
In-Reply-To: <4B3BC7D5.2030707@jurislex.com>
References: <4B3BA800.2040307@jurislex.com><20493216-67EC-41E3-BB8D-28AB269C1F7D@verizon.net>
	<4B3BC7D5.2030707@jurislex.com>
Message-ID: <8CC58E7BBF22451-8310-42D1A@webmail-d073.sysops.aol.com>


This Rose Bowl game
Leaves my world in flux
For so many years
I've loved the Ducks

Now a dilemma exists
And at the crux
Lies a heart of Scarlet
That screams GO BUCKS !!!



-----Original Message-----
From: Bob Browning <rab at jurislex.com>
To: Forest Grove local interests list <grovenet at rdrop.com>
Sent: Wed, Dec 30, 2009 1:36 pm
Subject: Re: [Grovenet] [Fwd: Pew Forum: How Religious Is Your State?]


I think a better statement would be as follows:


"In the final judgment, will we be judged by our profession of faith, or by our treatment of the least among us?"
The reason I suggest the change is because of the televangelists who tell us (or at least strongly suggest) that they are going to heaven and that we can too if only we make a pledge to their latest venture. However, if God does exist and if Jesus is his son, the Bible makes it clear that we ourselves do not make the decision as to who goes and who stays!! 

bob "have a good trip" browning
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
David Morelli wrote: 
Bob,
Perhaps, a better correlative question is:
"In the final judgement, will we be judged by our faith, or by our treatment of the least among us?"
David
 

On Dec 30, 2009, at 11:20 AM, Bob Browning wrote:

And note that, of all of the states above the national average, all but NC, IN, VA, FL, and MD/DC  (5 out of 21) voted for McCain/Palin, while in the bottom 25 of the listed states, only AK, MT/WY, AZ, and ND/SD voted for McCain/Palin. Thus, one might conclude that, based on gross analysis, importance of religion in one's life is probably the single most important correlative of whether one is likely to vote R or D!!


_______________________________________________
roveNet mailing list
roveNet at rdrop.com
ttp://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet


From g-g-steele at comcast.net  Fri Jan  1 07:05:32 2010
From: g-g-steele at comcast.net (Geri)
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 2010 07:05:32 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] 2010
References: <27567-4B3A53D0-589@storefull-3173.bay.webtv.net>
Message-ID: <1F6700AC659A4CDF93D3783FADE3F2DF@gerianehzkfhvy>

HAPPY 2010!

:-)  Geri

----- Original Message ----- 
From: Alan Domenghini aka an OleHoss 
To: GroveNet at rdrop.com 
Sent: Tuesday, December 29, 2009 11:09 AM
Subject: [Grovenet] 2010


http://community-2.webtv.net/OleHossTreeFarm/2010/

in any case ... HaPpY NeW YeAr

~A~ :<)




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


_______________________________________________
GroveNet mailing list
GroveNet at rdrop.com
http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet

From chopwoodcarrywater at verizon.net  Fri Jan  1 10:34:02 2010
From: chopwoodcarrywater at verizon.net (Julie Larson)
Date: Fri, 01 Jan 2010 10:34:02 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] Rose Bowl - Happy New Year
In-Reply-To: <8CC58E7BBF22451-8310-42D1A@webmail-d073.sysops.aol.com>
References: <4B3BA800.2040307@jurislex.com><20493216-67EC-41E3-BB8D-28AB269C1F7D@verizon.net>
	<4B3BC7D5.2030707@jurislex.com>
	<8CC58E7BBF22451-8310-42D1A@webmail-d073.sysops.aol.com>
Message-ID: <007001ca8b10$fe4cbce0$fae636a0$@net>

My typical posture on all things football is an ardent desire to somehow see
both teams lose. Short of that, Allen, I honestly wish you beloved Bucks the
very best. 

-----Original Message-----
From: grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com [mailto:grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com] On
Behalf Of buckeye53 at aol.com
Sent: Friday, January 01, 2010 2:53 AM
To: grovenet at rdrop.com
Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Rose Bowl - Happy New Year


This Rose Bowl game
Leaves my world in flux
For so many years
I've loved the Ducks

Now a dilemma exists
And at the crux
Lies a heart of Scarlet
That screams GO BUCKS !!!



-----Original Message-----
From: Bob Browning <rab at jurislex.com>
To: Forest Grove local interests list <grovenet at rdrop.com>
Sent: Wed, Dec 30, 2009 1:36 pm
Subject: Re: [Grovenet] [Fwd: Pew Forum: How Religious Is Your State?]


I think a better statement would be as follows:


"In the final judgment, will we be judged by our profession of faith, or by
our treatment of the least among us?"
The reason I suggest the change is because of the televangelists who tell us
(or at least strongly suggest) that they are going to heaven and that we can
too if only we make a pledge to their latest venture. However, if God does
exist and if Jesus is his son, the Bible makes it clear that we ourselves do
not make the decision as to who goes and who stays!! 

bob "have a good trip" browning
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
David Morelli wrote: 
Bob,
Perhaps, a better correlative question is:
"In the final judgement, will we be judged by our faith, or by our treatment
of the least among us?"
David
 

On Dec 30, 2009, at 11:20 AM, Bob Browning wrote:

And note that, of all of the states above the national average, all but NC,
IN, VA, FL, and MD/DC  (5 out of 21) voted for McCain/Palin, while in the
bottom 25 of the listed states, only AK, MT/WY, AZ, and ND/SD voted for
McCain/Palin. Thus, one might conclude that, based on gross analysis,
importance of religion in one's life is probably the single most important
correlative of whether one is likely to vote R or D!!


_______________________________________________
roveNet mailing list
roveNet at rdrop.com
ttp://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet

_______________________________________________
GroveNet mailing list
GroveNet at rdrop.com
http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet



From obrzl at verizon.net  Fri Jan  1 10:55:22 2010
From: obrzl at verizon.net (mark oberzil)
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 2010 10:55:22 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [Grovenet] Rose Bowl - Happy New Year
In-Reply-To: <007001ca8b10$fe4cbce0$fae636a0$@net>
Message-ID: <382205.45238.qm@web84206.mail.re3.yahoo.com>

Aye, this year's bowl,
'twill, soon be struck,
and ?fair called?fowl,
to?many a cluck.

The hour is late
soon answers fate
will passed be the Bucks
or soup, the Ducks?

--- On Fri, 1/1/10, Julie Larson <chopwoodcarrywater at verizon.net> wrote:


From: Julie Larson <chopwoodcarrywater at verizon.net>
Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Rose Bowl - Happy New Year
To: "'Forest Grove local interests list'" <grovenet at rdrop.com>
Date: Friday, January 1, 2010, 6:34 PM


My typical posture on all things football is an ardent desire to somehow see
both teams lose. Short of that, Allen, I honestly wish you beloved Bucks the
very best. 

-----Original Message-----
From: grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com [mailto:grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com] On
Behalf Of buckeye53 at aol.com
Sent: Friday, January 01, 2010 2:53 AM
To: grovenet at rdrop.com
Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Rose Bowl - Happy New Year


This Rose Bowl game
Leaves my world in flux
For so many years
I've loved the Ducks

Now a dilemma exists
And at the crux
Lies a heart of Scarlet
That screams GO BUCKS !!!



-----Original Message-----
From: Bob Browning <rab at jurislex.com>
To: Forest Grove local interests list <grovenet at rdrop.com>
Sent: Wed, Dec 30, 2009 1:36 pm
Subject: Re: [Grovenet] [Fwd: Pew Forum: How Religious Is Your State?]


I think a better statement would be as follows:


"In the final judgment, will we be judged by our profession of faith, or by
our treatment of the least among us?"
The reason I suggest the change is because of the televangelists who tell us
(or at least strongly suggest) that they are going to heaven and that we can
too if only we make a pledge to their latest venture. However, if God does
exist and if Jesus is his son, the Bible makes it clear that we ourselves do
not make the decision as to who goes and who stays!! 

bob "have a good trip" browning
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
David Morelli wrote: 
Bob,
Perhaps, a better correlative question is:
"In the final judgement, will we be judged by our faith, or by our treatment
of the least among us?"
David


On Dec 30, 2009, at 11:20 AM, Bob Browning wrote:

And note that, of all of the states above the national average, all but NC,
IN, VA, FL, and MD/DC? (5 out of 21) voted for McCain/Palin, while in the
bottom 25 of the listed states, only AK, MT/WY, AZ, and ND/SD voted for
McCain/Palin. Thus, one might conclude that, based on gross analysis,
importance of religion in one's life is probably the single most important
correlative of whether one is likely to vote R or D!!


_______________________________________________
roveNet mailing list
roveNet at rdrop.com
ttp://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet

_______________________________________________
GroveNet mailing list
GroveNet at rdrop.com
http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet


_______________________________________________
GroveNet mailing list
GroveNet at rdrop.com
http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet

From jo.david at verizon.net  Fri Jan  1 11:03:00 2010
From: jo.david at verizon.net (David Morelli)
Date: Fri, 01 Jan 2010 11:03:00 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] [Fwd: Pew Forum: How Religious Is Your State?]
In-Reply-To: <4B3BC7D5.2030707@jurislex.com>
References: <4B3BA800.2040307@jurislex.com>
	<20493216-67EC-41E3-BB8D-28AB269C1F7D@verizon.net>
	<4B3BC7D5.2030707@jurislex.com>
Message-ID: <E898EBDE-98B7-491E-A703-300D177A25CC@verizon.net>

I stand by the first statement.  The distinction goes back to the first century when the books of the New Testament were written.  At that time there were competing theologies as to what Christianity really meant.  The letters of Paul advocated salvation by faith.  Words ascribed to Jesus described selection based upon our works.  The question was not resolved at that time and both perspectives were included in the Bible.

Yes, the day to day implementation may be subject to fraud or manipulation by the televangelists and community organizers, but that isn't the base issue.  Christians choose to emphasize one side or the other, and can find scripture to support their position.  An analogy could be pricing fire wood where one side uses a tape measure, while the other uses a weight scale.

A believer in the imminent return of Christ may not be concerned over long term problems like species loss or global warming.  A believer in the social gospel may not be as concerned over "when does life begin?" as they are over "how do we treat living beings?"

I suggest that the difference in the basic belief system is reflected in the politicians and political party that they support.

David

On Dec 30, 2009, at 1:36 PM, Bob Browning wrote:

> I think a better statement would be as follows:
> 
>  "In the final judgment, will we be judged by our profession of faith, or by our treatment of the least among us?"
> The reason I suggest the change is because of the televangelists who tell us (or at least strongly suggest) that they are going to heaven and that we can too if only we make a pledge to their latest venture. However, if God does exist and if Jesus is his son, the Bible makes it clear that we ourselves do not make the decision as to who goes and who stays!! 
> 
> bob "have a good trip" browning

From g-g-steele at comcast.net  Fri Jan  1 12:38:45 2010
From: g-g-steele at comcast.net (Geri)
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 2010 12:38:45 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] Rose Bowl - Happy New Year
References: <382205.45238.qm@web84206.mail.re3.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <D5A92C08456D475E92CEED035162F1B3@gerianehzkfhvy>

LOL, am enjoying the rhymes, guys. :)

Geri

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "mark oberzil" <obrzl at verizon.net>
To: "Forest Grove local interests list" <grovenet at rdrop.com>
Sent: Friday, January 01, 2010 10:55 AM
Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Rose Bowl - Happy New Year


Aye, this year's bowl,
'twill, soon be struck,
and fair called fowl,
to many a cluck.

The hour is late
soon answers fate
will passed be the Bucks
or soup, the Ducks?

--- On Fri, 1/1/10, Julie Larson <chopwoodcarrywater at verizon.net> wrote:


From: Julie Larson <chopwoodcarrywater at verizon.net>
Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Rose Bowl - Happy New Year
To: "'Forest Grove local interests list'" <grovenet at rdrop.com>
Date: Friday, January 1, 2010, 6:34 PM


My typical posture on all things football is an ardent desire to somehow see
both teams lose. Short of that, Allen, I honestly wish you beloved Bucks the
very best. 

-----Original Message-----
From: grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com [mailto:grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com] On
Behalf Of buckeye53 at aol.com
Sent: Friday, January 01, 2010 2:53 AM
To: grovenet at rdrop.com
Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Rose Bowl - Happy New Year


This Rose Bowl game
Leaves my world in flux
For so many years
I've loved the Ducks

Now a dilemma exists
And at the crux
Lies a heart of Scarlet
That screams GO BUCKS !!!



-----Original Message-----
From: Bob Browning <rab at jurislex.com>
To: Forest Grove local interests list <grovenet at rdrop.com>
Sent: Wed, Dec 30, 2009 1:36 pm
Subject: Re: [Grovenet] [Fwd: Pew Forum: How Religious Is Your State?]


I think a better statement would be as follows:


"In the final judgment, will we be judged by our profession of faith, or by
our treatment of the least among us?"
The reason I suggest the change is because of the televangelists who tell us
(or at least strongly suggest) that they are going to heaven and that we can
too if only we make a pledge to their latest venture. However, if God does
exist and if Jesus is his son, the Bible makes it clear that we ourselves do
not make the decision as to who goes and who stays!! 

bob "have a good trip" browning
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
David Morelli wrote: 
Bob,
Perhaps, a better correlative question is:
"In the final judgement, will we be judged by our faith, or by our treatment
of the least among us?"
David


On Dec 30, 2009, at 11:20 AM, Bob Browning wrote:

And note that, of all of the states above the national average, all but NC,
IN, VA, FL, and MD/DC (5 out of 21) voted for McCain/Palin, while in the
bottom 25 of the listed states, only AK, MT/WY, AZ, and ND/SD voted for
McCain/Palin. Thus, one might conclude that, based on gross analysis,
importance of religion in one's life is probably the single most important
correlative of whether one is likely to vote R or D!!


_______________________________________________
roveNet mailing list
roveNet at rdrop.com
ttp://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet

_______________________________________________
GroveNet mailing list
GroveNet at rdrop.com
http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet


_______________________________________________
GroveNet mailing list
GroveNet at rdrop.com
http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
_______________________________________________
GroveNet mailing list
GroveNet at rdrop.com
http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet



From NoSpam03 at comcast.net  Sat Jan  2 11:10:18 2010
From: NoSpam03 at comcast.net (Steven)
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 2010 11:10:18 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] Hardcore Oregonian quiz
Message-ID: <002d01ca8bdf$39ebe810$adc3b830$@net>

Embarrassed to say Just about all (even #38). I own an umbrella and held it
for my wife once.

http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2009/12/just_how_hard-core_of_an
_orego.html

 

Take it by yourself or with friends and family. Tally answers of "yes" to
each statement and see how you rate. There is no passing score, but the
higher the mark, the more hardcore you are. 

1. I've visited Timberline Lodge. 

2. I've picked blackberries. 

3. I've visited Fort Clatsop. 

4. I've sat around a bonfire on an Oregon coast beach. 

5. I've visited the Oregon Country Fair. 

6. I've seen a play at the Oregon Shakespeare Festival. 

7. I've seen a Portland Trail Blazers game live. 

8. I've attended a Civil War football game. 

9. I've visited Bonneville Dam. 

10. I've visited the Capitol building in Salem. 

11. I've walked part of the Oregon Trail. 

12. I've visited Crater Lake. 

13. I've visited Multnomah Falls. 

14. I've visited the Tillamook Cheese Factory. 

15. I've visited the Wallowa Mountains. 

16. I feel depressed when I see a fresh clear-cut. 

17. I've hunted game. 

18. I know where Celilo Falls used to be. 

19. I've seen "Drugstore Cowboy." 

20. I own some article of Pendleton Woolen Mills clothing or bedding. 

21. I've read something by Stewart Holbrook. 

22. I never drink bottled water. 

23. I hate pumping my own gas when I visit other states! 

24. I've returned cans and bottles and immediately bought more beer. 

25. I've had a 10-minute or longer conversation about an Oregon microbrew. 

26. I've visited an Oregon winery. 

27. I've eaten pears or apples off a tree near Hood River. 

28. I've tasted a hazelnut milkshake from Burgerville. 

29. I know some of the lyrics to "Louie, Louie." 

30. I know who Steve Prefontaine was. 

31. I "know" a professional who uses marijuana regularly. 

32. I've played Hacky Sack. 

33. I know who said, "We want you to visit our State of Excitement often.
Come again and again. But for heaven's sake, don't move here to live." 

34. I wince when I see an SUV with a California license plate idling in the
parking lot of a real estate office. 

35. I've started and finished "Sometimes a Great Notion" by Ken Kesey. 

36. I've read "Livability" by Jonathan Raymond. 

37. I've read an entire book at Powell's while sitting in the coffee room. 

38. I've run naked in the Oregon woods, desert or beach. 

39. I've either fished for salmon or seen salmon spawn in the wild. 

40. I've seen either a coyote, bear, deer or cougar in the wild. 

41. I've ridden a bicycle in the past month. 

42. I've climbed a tree in the past year. 

43. I've attended the Pendleton Round-Up. 

44. I've seen the Painted Hills. 

45. I've visited the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. 

46. I've attended the Oregon State Fair. 

47. I've either run the Hood to Coast or biked U.S. 101 or climbed Mount
Hood or hiked all or part of the Pacific Crest Trail or surfed in Oregon's
oceans or windsurfed in the Columbia River. 

48. I've cut my own Christmas tree. 

49. I've ridden in the Oregon City Elevator. 

50. I never use an umbrella!


From ocollaugh at comcast.net  Sat Jan  2 11:23:44 2010
From: ocollaugh at comcast.net (donkelly)
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 2010 19:23:44 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: [Grovenet] Hardcore Oregonian quiz
In-Reply-To: <002d01ca8bdf$39ebe810$adc3b830$@net>
Message-ID: <1525529798.6693211262460224387.JavaMail.root@sz0024a.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net>

Well Steven, I scored 13 which is probably lower than whale crap.

donkelly

----- Original Message -----
From: Steven <NoSpam03 at comcast.net>
To: 'Forest Grove local interests list' <grovenet at rdrop.com>
Sent: Sat, 2 Jan 2010 19:10:18 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: [Grovenet] Hardcore Oregonian quiz

Embarrassed to say Just about all (even #38). I own an umbrella and held it
for my wife once.

http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2009/12/just_how_hard-core_of_an
_orego.html

 

Take it by yourself or with friends and family. Tally answers of "yes" to
each statement and see how you rate. There is no passing score, but the
higher the mark, the more hardcore you are. 

1. I've visited Timberline Lodge. 

2. I've picked blackberries. 

3. I've visited Fort Clatsop. 

4. I've sat around a bonfire on an Oregon coast beach. 

5. I've visited the Oregon Country Fair. 

6. I've seen a play at the Oregon Shakespeare Festival. 

7. I've seen a Portland Trail Blazers game live. 

8. I've attended a Civil War football game. 

9. I've visited Bonneville Dam. 

10. I've visited the Capitol building in Salem. 

11. I've walked part of the Oregon Trail. 

12. I've visited Crater Lake. 

13. I've visited Multnomah Falls. 

14. I've visited the Tillamook Cheese Factory. 

15. I've visited the Wallowa Mountains. 

16. I feel depressed when I see a fresh clear-cut. 

17. I've hunted game. 

18. I know where Celilo Falls used to be. 

19. I've seen "Drugstore Cowboy." 

20. I own some article of Pendleton Woolen Mills clothing or bedding. 

21. I've read something by Stewart Holbrook. 

22. I never drink bottled water. 

23. I hate pumping my own gas when I visit other states! 

24. I've returned cans and bottles and immediately bought more beer. 

25. I've had a 10-minute or longer conversation about an Oregon microbrew. 

26. I've visited an Oregon winery. 

27. I've eaten pears or apples off a tree near Hood River. 

28. I've tasted a hazelnut milkshake from Burgerville. 

29. I know some of the lyrics to "Louie, Louie." 

30. I know who Steve Prefontaine was. 

31. I "know" a professional who uses marijuana regularly. 

32. I've played Hacky Sack. 

33. I know who said, "We want you to visit our State of Excitement often.
Come again and again. But for heaven's sake, don't move here to live." 

34. I wince when I see an SUV with a California license plate idling in the
parking lot of a real estate office. 

35. I've started and finished "Sometimes a Great Notion" by Ken Kesey. 

36. I've read "Livability" by Jonathan Raymond. 

37. I've read an entire book at Powell's while sitting in the coffee room. 

38. I've run naked in the Oregon woods, desert or beach. 

39. I've either fished for salmon or seen salmon spawn in the wild. 

40. I've seen either a coyote, bear, deer or cougar in the wild. 

41. I've ridden a bicycle in the past month. 

42. I've climbed a tree in the past year. 

43. I've attended the Pendleton Round-Up. 

44. I've seen the Painted Hills. 

45. I've visited the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. 

46. I've attended the Oregon State Fair. 

47. I've either run the Hood to Coast or biked U.S. 101 or climbed Mount
Hood or hiked all or part of the Pacific Crest Trail or surfed in Oregon's
oceans or windsurfed in the Columbia River. 

48. I've cut my own Christmas tree. 

49. I've ridden in the Oregon City Elevator. 

50. I never use an umbrella!

_______________________________________________
GroveNet mailing list
GroveNet at rdrop.com
http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet


From waltw at teleport.com  Sat Jan  2 20:02:04 2010
From: waltw at teleport.com (Walt Wentz)
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 2010 20:02:04 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] Hardcore Oregonian quiz
In-Reply-To: <1525529798.6693211262460224387.JavaMail.root@sz0024a.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net>
References: <1525529798.6693211262460224387.JavaMail.root@sz0024a.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net>
Message-ID: <3806C041-FB8A-47A6-8D76-AEFDCE639FA4@teleport.com>

Only scored 32 myself, which is pretty sad considering I've been here  
longer than dirt.
Walt

On Jan 2, 2010, at 11:23 AM, donkelly wrote:

> Well Steven, I scored 13 which is probably lower than whale crap.
>
> donkelly
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Steven <NoSpam03 at comcast.net>
> To: 'Forest Grove local interests list' <grovenet at rdrop.com>
> Sent: Sat, 2 Jan 2010 19:10:18 +0000 (UTC)
> Subject: [Grovenet] Hardcore Oregonian quiz
>
> Embarrassed to say Just about all (even #38). I own an umbrella and  
> held it
> for my wife once.
>
> http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2009/12/just_how_hard- 
> core_of_an
> _orego.html
>
>
>
> Take it by yourself or with friends and family. Tally answers of  
> "yes" to
> each statement and see how you rate. There is no passing score, but  
> the
> higher the mark, the more hardcore you are.
>
> 1. I've visited Timberline Lodge.
>
> 2. I've picked blackberries.
>
> 3. I've visited Fort Clatsop.
>
> 4. I've sat around a bonfire on an Oregon coast beach.
>
> 5. I've visited the Oregon Country Fair.
>
> 6. I've seen a play at the Oregon Shakespeare Festival.
>
> 7. I've seen a Portland Trail Blazers game live.
>
> 8. I've attended a Civil War football game.
>
> 9. I've visited Bonneville Dam.
>
> 10. I've visited the Capitol building in Salem.
>
> 11. I've walked part of the Oregon Trail.
>
> 12. I've visited Crater Lake.
>
> 13. I've visited Multnomah Falls.
>
> 14. I've visited the Tillamook Cheese Factory.
>
> 15. I've visited the Wallowa Mountains.
>
> 16. I feel depressed when I see a fresh clear-cut.
>
> 17. I've hunted game.
>
> 18. I know where Celilo Falls used to be.
>
> 19. I've seen "Drugstore Cowboy."
>
> 20. I own some article of Pendleton Woolen Mills clothing or bedding.
>
> 21. I've read something by Stewart Holbrook.
>
> 22. I never drink bottled water.
>
> 23. I hate pumping my own gas when I visit other states!
>
> 24. I've returned cans and bottles and immediately bought more beer.
>
> 25. I've had a 10-minute or longer conversation about an Oregon  
> microbrew.
>
> 26. I've visited an Oregon winery.
>
> 27. I've eaten pears or apples off a tree near Hood River.
>
> 28. I've tasted a hazelnut milkshake from Burgerville.
>
> 29. I know some of the lyrics to "Louie, Louie."
>
> 30. I know who Steve Prefontaine was.
>
> 31. I "know" a professional who uses marijuana regularly.
>
> 32. I've played Hacky Sack.
>
> 33. I know who said, "We want you to visit our State of Excitement  
> often.
> Come again and again. But for heaven's sake, don't move here to live."
>
> 34. I wince when I see an SUV with a California license plate  
> idling in the
> parking lot of a real estate office.
>
> 35. I've started and finished "Sometimes a Great Notion" by Ken Kesey.
>
> 36. I've read "Livability" by Jonathan Raymond.
>
> 37. I've read an entire book at Powell's while sitting in the  
> coffee room.
>
> 38. I've run naked in the Oregon woods, desert or beach.
>
> 39. I've either fished for salmon or seen salmon spawn in the wild.
>
> 40. I've seen either a coyote, bear, deer or cougar in the wild.
>
> 41. I've ridden a bicycle in the past month.
>
> 42. I've climbed a tree in the past year.
>
> 43. I've attended the Pendleton Round-Up.
>
> 44. I've seen the Painted Hills.
>
> 45. I've visited the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge.
>
> 46. I've attended the Oregon State Fair.
>
> 47. I've either run the Hood to Coast or biked U.S. 101 or climbed  
> Mount
> Hood or hiked all or part of the Pacific Crest Trail or surfed in  
> Oregon's
> oceans or windsurfed in the Columbia River.
>
> 48. I've cut my own Christmas tree.
>
> 49. I've ridden in the Oregon City Elevator.
>
> 50. I never use an umbrella!
>
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet


From ocollaugh at comcast.net  Sat Jan  2 20:08:23 2010
From: ocollaugh at comcast.net (donkelly)
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 2010 04:08:23 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: [Grovenet] Hardcore Oregonian quiz
In-Reply-To: <3806C041-FB8A-47A6-8D76-AEFDCE639FA4@teleport.com>
Message-ID: <221738460.6810781262491703596.JavaMail.root@sz0024a.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net>

Been here since 94, but except for work, don't get out much.
My bad

don
----- Original Message -----
From: Walt Wentz <waltw at teleport.com>
To: Forest Grove local interests list <grovenet at rdrop.com>
Sent: Sun, 3 Jan 2010 04:02:04 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Hardcore Oregonian quiz

Only scored 32 myself, which is pretty sad considering I've been here  
longer than dirt.
Walt

On Jan 2, 2010, at 11:23 AM, donkelly wrote:

> Well Steven, I scored 13 which is probably lower than whale crap.
>
> donkelly
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Steven <NoSpam03 at comcast.net>
> To: 'Forest Grove local interests list' <grovenet at rdrop.com>
> Sent: Sat, 2 Jan 2010 19:10:18 +0000 (UTC)
> Subject: [Grovenet] Hardcore Oregonian quiz
>
> Embarrassed to say Just about all (even #38). I own an umbrella and  
> held it
> for my wife once.
>
> http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2009/12/just_how_hard- 
> core_of_an
> _orego.html
>
>
>
> Take it by yourself or with friends and family. Tally answers of  
> "yes" to
> each statement and see how you rate. There is no passing score, but  
> the
> higher the mark, the more hardcore you are.
>
> 1. I've visited Timberline Lodge.
>
> 2. I've picked blackberries.
>
> 3. I've visited Fort Clatsop.
>
> 4. I've sat around a bonfire on an Oregon coast beach.
>
> 5. I've visited the Oregon Country Fair.
>
> 6. I've seen a play at the Oregon Shakespeare Festival.
>
> 7. I've seen a Portland Trail Blazers game live.
>
> 8. I've attended a Civil War football game.
>
> 9. I've visited Bonneville Dam.
>
> 10. I've visited the Capitol building in Salem.
>
> 11. I've walked part of the Oregon Trail.
>
> 12. I've visited Crater Lake.
>
> 13. I've visited Multnomah Falls.
>
> 14. I've visited the Tillamook Cheese Factory.
>
> 15. I've visited the Wallowa Mountains.
>
> 16. I feel depressed when I see a fresh clear-cut.
>
> 17. I've hunted game.
>
> 18. I know where Celilo Falls used to be.
>
> 19. I've seen "Drugstore Cowboy."
>
> 20. I own some article of Pendleton Woolen Mills clothing or bedding.
>
> 21. I've read something by Stewart Holbrook.
>
> 22. I never drink bottled water.
>
> 23. I hate pumping my own gas when I visit other states!
>
> 24. I've returned cans and bottles and immediately bought more beer.
>
> 25. I've had a 10-minute or longer conversation about an Oregon  
> microbrew.
>
> 26. I've visited an Oregon winery.
>
> 27. I've eaten pears or apples off a tree near Hood River.
>
> 28. I've tasted a hazelnut milkshake from Burgerville.
>
> 29. I know some of the lyrics to "Louie, Louie."
>
> 30. I know who Steve Prefontaine was.
>
> 31. I "know" a professional who uses marijuana regularly.
>
> 32. I've played Hacky Sack.
>
> 33. I know who said, "We want you to visit our State of Excitement  
> often.
> Come again and again. But for heaven's sake, don't move here to live."
>
> 34. I wince when I see an SUV with a California license plate  
> idling in the
> parking lot of a real estate office.
>
> 35. I've started and finished "Sometimes a Great Notion" by Ken Kesey.
>
> 36. I've read "Livability" by Jonathan Raymond.
>
> 37. I've read an entire book at Powell's while sitting in the  
> coffee room.
>
> 38. I've run naked in the Oregon woods, desert or beach.
>
> 39. I've either fished for salmon or seen salmon spawn in the wild.
>
> 40. I've seen either a coyote, bear, deer or cougar in the wild.
>
> 41. I've ridden a bicycle in the past month.
>
> 42. I've climbed a tree in the past year.
>
> 43. I've attended the Pendleton Round-Up.
>
> 44. I've seen the Painted Hills.
>
> 45. I've visited the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge.
>
> 46. I've attended the Oregon State Fair.
>
> 47. I've either run the Hood to Coast or biked U.S. 101 or climbed  
> Mount
> Hood or hiked all or part of the Pacific Crest Trail or surfed in  
> Oregon's
> oceans or windsurfed in the Columbia River.
>
> 48. I've cut my own Christmas tree.
>
> 49. I've ridden in the Oregon City Elevator.
>
> 50. I never use an umbrella!
>
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet

_______________________________________________
GroveNet mailing list
GroveNet at rdrop.com
http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet


From nuzriter at aol.com  Sat Jan  2 20:10:52 2010
From: nuzriter at aol.com (nuzriter at aol.com)
Date: Sat, 02 Jan 2010 23:10:52 -0500
Subject: [Grovenet] Hardcore Oregonian quiz
In-Reply-To: <3806C041-FB8A-47A6-8D76-AEFDCE639FA4@teleport.com>
References: <1525529798.6693211262460224387.JavaMail.root@sz0024a.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net>
	<3806C041-FB8A-47A6-8D76-AEFDCE639FA4@teleport.com>
Message-ID: <8CC5A41DF66456A-3E1C-6A3C9@webmail-d074.sysops.aol.com>

I scored 38 ... a lot of it in my last two years of retirement. Ah, ain't life grand :-)


Linda Saari







-----Original Message-----
From: Walt Wentz <waltw at teleport.com>
To: Forest Grove local interests list <grovenet at rdrop.com>
Sent: Sat, Jan 2, 2010 8:02 pm
Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Hardcore Oregonian quiz


Only scored 32 myself, which is pretty sad considering I've been here  
onger than dirt.
alt
On Jan 2, 2010, at 11:23 AM, donkelly wrote:
> Well Steven, I scored 13 which is probably lower than whale crap.

 donkelly

 ----- Original Message -----
 From: Steven <NoSpam03 at comcast.net>
 To: 'Forest Grove local interests list' <grovenet at rdrop.com>
 Sent: Sat, 2 Jan 2010 19:10:18 +0000 (UTC)
 Subject: [Grovenet] Hardcore Oregonian quiz

 Embarrassed to say Just about all (even #38). I own an umbrella and  
 held it
 for my wife once.

 http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2009/12/just_how_hard- 
 core_of_an
 _orego.html



 Take it by yourself or with friends and family. Tally answers of  
 "yes" to
 each statement and see how you rate. There is no passing score, but  
 the
 higher the mark, the more hardcore you are.

 1. I've visited Timberline Lodge.

 2. I've picked blackberries.

 3. I've visited Fort Clatsop.

 4. I've sat around a bonfire on an Oregon coast beach.

 5. I've visited the Oregon Country Fair.

 6. I've seen a play at the Oregon Shakespeare Festival.

 7. I've seen a Portland Trail Blazers game live.

 8. I've attended a Civil War football game.

 9. I've visited Bonneville Dam.

 10. I've visited the Capitol building in Salem.

 11. I've walked part of the Oregon Trail.

 12. I've visited Crater Lake.

 13. I've visited Multnomah Falls.

 14. I've visited the Tillamook Cheese Factory.

 15. I've visited the Wallowa Mountains.

 16. I feel depressed when I see a fresh clear-cut.

 17. I've hunted game.

 18. I know where Celilo Falls used to be.

 19. I've seen "Drugstore Cowboy."

 20. I own some article of Pendleton Woolen Mills clothing or bedding.

 21. I've read something by Stewart Holbrook.

 22. I never drink bottled water.

 23. I hate pumping my own gas when I visit other states!

 24. I've returned cans and bottles and immediately bought more beer.

 25. I've had a 10-minute or longer conversation about an Oregon  
 microbrew.

 26. I've visited an Oregon winery.

 27. I've eaten pears or apples off a tree near Hood River.

 28. I've tasted a hazelnut milkshake from Burgerville.

 29. I know some of the lyrics to "Louie, Louie."

 30. I know who Steve Prefontaine was.

 31. I "know" a professional who uses marijuana regularly.

 32. I've played Hacky Sack.

 33. I know who said, "We want you to visit our State of Excitement  
 often.
 Come again and again. But for heaven's sake, don't move here to live."

 34. I wince when I see an SUV with a California license plate  
 idling in the
 parking lot of a real estate office.

 35. I've started and finished "Sometimes a Great Notion" by Ken Kesey.

 36. I've read "Livability" by Jonathan Raymond.

 37. I've read an entire book at Powell's while sitting in the  
 coffee room.

 38. I've run naked in the Oregon woods, desert or beach.

 39. I've either fished for salmon or seen salmon spawn in the wild.

 40. I've seen either a coyote, bear, deer or cougar in the wild.

 41. I've ridden a bicycle in the past month.

 42. I've climbed a tree in the past year.

 43. I've attended the Pendleton Round-Up.

 44. I've seen the Painted Hills.

 45. I've visited the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge.

 46. I've attended the Oregon State Fair.

 47. I've either run the Hood to Coast or biked U.S. 101 or climbed  
 Mount
 Hood or hiked all or part of the Pacific Crest Trail or surfed in  
 Oregon's
 oceans or windsurfed in the Columbia River.

 48. I've cut my own Christmas tree.

 49. I've ridden in the Oregon City Elevator.

 50. I never use an umbrella!

 _______________________________________________
 GroveNet mailing list
 GroveNet at rdrop.com
 http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet

 _______________________________________________
 GroveNet mailing list
 GroveNet at rdrop.com
 http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
_______________________________________________
roveNet mailing list
roveNet at rdrop.com
ttp://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet


From jo.david at verizon.net  Sat Jan  2 22:11:54 2010
From: jo.david at verizon.net (David Morelli)
Date: Sat, 02 Jan 2010 22:11:54 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] Hardcore Oregonian quiz
In-Reply-To: <002d01ca8bdf$39ebe810$adc3b830$@net>
References: <002d01ca8bdf$39ebe810$adc3b830$@net>
Message-ID: <24DA6A4B-8388-4B38-A425-1925C9A76C97@verizon.net>

Only 31, because I missed 19.

Unless I can get points for: 
#6 watching a rehearsal.
#7 attending a Winterhawk game.
#17 catching Smelt on the Sandy River.
#24 spending bottle deposit on candy instead of beer.
#27 drinking fresh pressed cider at a Hood River farm.
#40 watching wild deer walking across the backyard.
#47 picking wild huckleberries on Mt. Hood.

#28 picking and drying filberts.  Because hazelnuts *really* are filberts.

David


On Jan 2, 2010, at 11:10 AM, Steven wrote:

> Embarrassed to say Just about all (even #38). I own an umbrella and held it
> for my wife once.
> 
> http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2009/12/just_how_hard-core_of_an
> _orego.html
> 
> 
> 
> Take it by yourself or with friends and family. Tally answers of "yes" to
> each statement and see how you rate. There is no passing score, but the
> higher the mark, the more hardcore you are. 
> 
> 1. I've visited Timberline Lodge. 
> 
> 2. I've picked blackberries. 
> 
> 3. I've visited Fort Clatsop. 
> 
> 4. I've sat around a bonfire on an Oregon coast beach. 
> 
> 5. I've visited the Oregon Country Fair. 
> 
> 6. I've seen a play at the Oregon Shakespeare Festival. 
> 
> 7. I've seen a Portland Trail Blazers game live. 
> 
> 8. I've attended a Civil War football game. 
> 
> 9. I've visited Bonneville Dam. 
> 
> 10. I've visited the Capitol building in Salem. 
> 
> 11. I've walked part of the Oregon Trail. 
> 
> 12. I've visited Crater Lake. 
> 
> 13. I've visited Multnomah Falls. 
> 
> 14. I've visited the Tillamook Cheese Factory. 
> 
> 15. I've visited the Wallowa Mountains. 
> 
> 16. I feel depressed when I see a fresh clear-cut. 
> 
> 17. I've hunted game. 
> 
> 18. I know where Celilo Falls used to be. 
> 
> 19. I've seen "Drugstore Cowboy." 
> 
> 20. I own some article of Pendleton Woolen Mills clothing or bedding. 
> 
> 21. I've read something by Stewart Holbrook. 
> 
> 22. I never drink bottled water. 
> 
> 23. I hate pumping my own gas when I visit other states! 
> 
> 24. I've returned cans and bottles and immediately bought more beer. 
> 
> 25. I've had a 10-minute or longer conversation about an Oregon microbrew. 
> 
> 26. I've visited an Oregon winery. 
> 
> 27. I've eaten pears or apples off a tree near Hood River. 
> 
> 28. I've tasted a hazelnut milkshake from Burgerville. 
> 
> 29. I know some of the lyrics to "Louie, Louie." 
> 
> 30. I know who Steve Prefontaine was. 
> 
> 31. I "know" a professional who uses marijuana regularly. 
> 
> 32. I've played Hacky Sack. 
> 
> 33. I know who said, "We want you to visit our State of Excitement often.
> Come again and again. But for heaven's sake, don't move here to live." 
> 
> 34. I wince when I see an SUV with a California license plate idling in the
> parking lot of a real estate office. 
> 
> 35. I've started and finished "Sometimes a Great Notion" by Ken Kesey. 
> 
> 36. I've read "Livability" by Jonathan Raymond. 
> 
> 37. I've read an entire book at Powell's while sitting in the coffee room. 
> 
> 38. I've run naked in the Oregon woods, desert or beach. 
> 
> 39. I've either fished for salmon or seen salmon spawn in the wild. 
> 
> 40. I've seen either a coyote, bear, deer or cougar in the wild. 
> 
> 41. I've ridden a bicycle in the past month. 
> 
> 42. I've climbed a tree in the past year. 
> 
> 43. I've attended the Pendleton Round-Up. 
> 
> 44. I've seen the Painted Hills. 
> 
> 45. I've visited the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. 
> 
> 46. I've attended the Oregon State Fair. 
> 
> 47. I've either run the Hood to Coast or biked U.S. 101 or climbed Mount
> Hood or hiked all or part of the Pacific Crest Trail or surfed in Oregon's
> oceans or windsurfed in the Columbia River. 
> 
> 48. I've cut my own Christmas tree. 
> 
> 49. I've ridden in the Oregon City Elevator. 
> 
> 50. I never use an umbrella!
> 
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet



From ocollaugh at comcast.net  Sun Jan  3 09:43:21 2010
From: ocollaugh at comcast.net (donkelly)
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 2010 17:43:21 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: [Grovenet] Hardcore Oregonian quiz
In-Reply-To: <24DA6A4B-8388-4B38-A425-1925C9A76C97@verizon.net>
Message-ID: <1937495932.6887021262540601581.JavaMail.root@sz0024a.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net>

Interesting to see if anyone admits to having a lower than 13 score I got. 
LOL

don


----- Original Message -----
From: David Morelli <jo.david at verizon.net>
To: Forest Grove local interests list <grovenet at rdrop.com>
Sent: Sun, 3 Jan 2010 06:11:54 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Hardcore Oregonian quiz

Only 31, because I missed 19.

Unless I can get points for: 
#6 watching a rehearsal.
#7 attending a Winterhawk game.
#17 catching Smelt on the Sandy River.
#24 spending bottle deposit on candy instead of beer.
#27 drinking fresh pressed cider at a Hood River farm.
#40 watching wild deer walking across the backyard.
#47 picking wild huckleberries on Mt. Hood.

#28 picking and drying filberts.  Because hazelnuts *really* are filberts.

David



From hannah at teleport.com  Sun Jan  3 09:49:52 2010
From: hannah at teleport.com (Kristy Gravlin)
Date: Sun, 03 Jan 2010 11:49:52 -0600
Subject: [Grovenet] Hardcore Oregonian quiz
In-Reply-To: <1937495932.6887021262540601581.JavaMail.root@sz0024a.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net>
Message-ID: <C76634E0.1235B%hannah@teleport.com>

Seems right to me...I gave myself credit for buying more Dr. Pepper. There
were no beer cans in the trunk full of cans so that wouldn't be "fair".  8-)


On 1/3/10 11:43 AM, "donkelly" <ocollaugh at comcast.net> wrote:

> #24 spending bottle deposit on candy instead of beer.



From osubuckeye59 at yahoo.com  Sun Jan  3 10:25:57 2010
From: osubuckeye59 at yahoo.com (Allen Warren)
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 2010 10:25:57 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [Grovenet] Rose Bowl - Happy New Year
In-Reply-To: <D5A92C08456D475E92CEED035162F1B3@gerianehzkfhvy>
References: <382205.45238.qm@web84206.mail.re3.yahoo.com>
	<D5A92C08456D475E92CEED035162F1B3@gerianehzkfhvy>
Message-ID: <111109.18380.qm@web112118.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>

January 1 was a beautiful day
To watch the Bucks and Ducks go play

It was warm and sunny in Pasadena town
as my beloved Bucks laid the hammer down!

 
This year's Rose Bowl was special for me to attend: it was 30 years to the day I attended my first Rose Bowl, being fortunate enough to both march and play in the Ohio State University Marching Band.  Even though we lost a close one to USC that year (17-16), I'll never forget the experience of marching on that big, red beautiful rose in the middle of the field.  This year's Rose Bowl was fantastic, and all the Duck fans I ran into were extremely kind.  There's no doubt in my mind Oregon could easily be back either at the Rose Bowl or potentially in the BCS National game next year.


Allen Warren



________________________________
From: Geri <g-g-steele at comcast.net>
To: Forest Grove local interests list <grovenet at rdrop.com>
Sent: Fri, January 1, 2010 12:38:45 PM
Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Rose Bowl - Happy New Year

LOL, am enjoying the rhymes, guys. :)

Geri

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "mark oberzil" <obrzl at verizon.net>
To: "Forest Grove local interests list" <grovenet at rdrop.com>
Sent: Friday, January 01, 2010 10:55 AM
Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Rose Bowl - Happy New Year


Aye, this year's bowl,
'twill, soon be struck,
and fair called fowl,
to many a cluck.

The hour is late
soon answers fate
will passed be the Bucks
or soup, the Ducks?

--- On Fri, 1/1/10, Julie Larson <chopwoodcarrywater at verizon.net> wrote:


From: Julie Larson <chopwoodcarrywater at verizon.net>
Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Rose Bowl - Happy New Year
To: "'Forest Grove local interests list'" <grovenet at rdrop.com>
Date: Friday, January 1, 2010, 6:34 PM


My typical posture on all things football is an ardent desire to somehow see
both teams lose. Short of that, Allen, I honestly wish you beloved Bucks the
very best. 

-----Original Message-----
From: grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com [mailto:grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com] On
Behalf Of buckeye53 at aol.com
Sent: Friday, January 01, 2010 2:53 AM
To: grovenet at rdrop.com
Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Rose Bowl - Happy New Year


This Rose Bowl game
Leaves my world in flux
For so many years
I've loved the Ducks

Now a dilemma exists
And at the crux
Lies a heart of Scarlet
That screams GO BUCKS !!!



-----Original Message-----
From: Bob Browning <rab at jurislex.com>
To: Forest Grove local interests list <grovenet at rdrop.com>
Sent: Wed, Dec 30, 2009 1:36 pm
Subject: Re: [Grovenet] [Fwd: Pew Forum: How Religious Is Your State?]


I think a better statement would be as follows:


"In the final judgment, will we be judged by our profession of faith, or by
our treatment of the least among us?"
The reason I suggest the change is because of the televangelists who tell us
(or at least strongly suggest) that they are going to heaven and that we can
too if only we make a pledge to their latest venture. However, if God does
exist and if Jesus is his son, the Bible makes it clear that we ourselves do
not make the decision as to who goes and who stays!! 

bob "have a good trip" browning
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
David Morelli wrote: 
Bob,
Perhaps, a better correlative question is:
"In the final judgement, will we be judged by our faith, or by our treatment
of the least among us?"
David


On Dec 30, 2009, at 11:20 AM, Bob Browning wrote:

And note that, of all of the states above the national average, all but NC,
IN, VA, FL, and MD/DC (5 out of 21) voted for McCain/Palin, while in the
bottom 25 of the listed states, only AK, MT/WY, AZ, and ND/SD voted for
McCain/Palin. Thus, one might conclude that, based on gross analysis,
importance of religion in one's life is probably the single most important
correlative of whether one is likely to vote R or D!!


_______________________________________________
roveNet mailing list
roveNet at rdrop.com
ttp://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet

_______________________________________________
GroveNet mailing list
GroveNet at rdrop.com
http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet


_______________________________________________
GroveNet mailing list
GroveNet at rdrop.com
http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
_______________________________________________
GroveNet mailing list
GroveNet at rdrop.com
http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet


_______________________________________________
GroveNet mailing list
GroveNet at rdrop.com
http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet



      

From ocollaugh at comcast.net  Sun Jan  3 10:35:54 2010
From: ocollaugh at comcast.net (donkelly)
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 2010 18:35:54 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: [Grovenet] Hardcore Oregonian quiz
In-Reply-To: <C76634E0.1235B%hannah@teleport.com>
Message-ID: <700764611.6901051262543754818.JavaMail.root@sz0024a.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net>

We spend bottle (actually soft drink cans) deposits on laundry soap, so I could not claim that answer.

We have lived here since Dec 6, 1994 after moving from Alaska. We have not visited any mountains, hunted or fished, or played golf in Oregon. 

Golf could be good here, but hunting and fishing just doesn't measure up. 

However, We do plan at some point to visit the mountains, St. Helens and Hood, and perhaps even put on a pair of skis. 

On skis I am more into cross country than I am downhill. 

I stay healthier that way. 

However, there are dangers in cross country skiing in Alaska, bears if they are early out of hybernation, moose anytime can be nasty, occasionally a couger will take a nip of a skier (hit n run), and great horned snowy owls can put many stitches in your head if you invade their territory.

They attack skiers every year or two. Lots of eagles around Alaska, but no attacks unless you approach their nest. But they will steal your fish when your back is turned.

don

----- Original Message -----
From: Kristy Gravlin <hannah at teleport.com>
To: Forest Grove local interests list <grovenet at rdrop.com>
Sent: Sun, 3 Jan 2010 17:49:52 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Hardcore Oregonian quiz

Seems right to me...I gave myself credit for buying more Dr. Pepper. There
were no beer cans in the trunk full of cans so that wouldn't be "fair".  8-)


On 1/3/10 11:43 AM, "donkelly" <ocollaugh at comcast.net> wrote:

> #24 spending bottle deposit on candy instead of beer.


_______________________________________________
GroveNet mailing list
GroveNet at rdrop.com
http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet


From g-g-steele at comcast.net  Sun Jan  3 13:51:38 2010
From: g-g-steele at comcast.net (Geri)
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 2010 13:51:38 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] Hardcore Oregonian quiz
References: <002d01ca8bdf$39ebe810$adc3b830$@net>
	<24DA6A4B-8388-4B38-A425-1925C9A76C97@verizon.net>
Message-ID: <EF4778E6F929459AAF5442509EF09D28@gerianehzkfhvy>

Yikes, only 24 for me ~  Many more have been on my
long time to-do list, and makes me think I better get
with it!

;-)  Geri  


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "David Morelli" <jo.david at verizon.net>
To: "Forest Grove local interests list" <grovenet at rdrop.com>
Sent: Saturday, January 02, 2010 10:11 PM
Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Hardcore Oregonian quiz


> Only 31, because I missed 19.
> 
> Unless I can get points for: 
> #6 watching a rehearsal.
> #7 attending a Winterhawk game.
> #17 catching Smelt on the Sandy River.
> #24 spending bottle deposit on candy instead of beer.
> #27 drinking fresh pressed cider at a Hood River farm.
> #40 watching wild deer walking across the backyard.
> #47 picking wild huckleberries on Mt. Hood.
> 
> #28 picking and drying filberts.  Because hazelnuts *really* are filberts.
> 
> David
> 
> 
> On Jan 2, 2010, at 11:10 AM, Steven wrote:
> 
>> Embarrassed to say Just about all (even #38). I own an umbrella and held it
>> for my wife once.
>> 
>> http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2009/12/just_how_hard-core_of_an
>> _orego.html
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Take it by yourself or with friends and family. Tally answers of "yes" to
>> each statement and see how you rate. There is no passing score, but the
>> higher the mark, the more hardcore you are. 
>> 
>> 1. I've visited Timberline Lodge. 
>> 
>> 2. I've picked blackberries. 
>> 
>> 3. I've visited Fort Clatsop. 
>> 
>> 4. I've sat around a bonfire on an Oregon coast beach. 
>> 
>> 5. I've visited the Oregon Country Fair. 
>> 
>> 6. I've seen a play at the Oregon Shakespeare Festival. 
>> 
>> 7. I've seen a Portland Trail Blazers game live. 
>> 
>> 8. I've attended a Civil War football game. 
>> 
>> 9. I've visited Bonneville Dam. 
>> 
>> 10. I've visited the Capitol building in Salem. 
>> 
>> 11. I've walked part of the Oregon Trail. 
>> 
>> 12. I've visited Crater Lake. 
>> 
>> 13. I've visited Multnomah Falls. 
>> 
>> 14. I've visited the Tillamook Cheese Factory. 
>> 
>> 15. I've visited the Wallowa Mountains. 
>> 
>> 16. I feel depressed when I see a fresh clear-cut. 
>> 
>> 17. I've hunted game. 
>> 
>> 18. I know where Celilo Falls used to be. 
>> 
>> 19. I've seen "Drugstore Cowboy." 
>> 
>> 20. I own some article of Pendleton Woolen Mills clothing or bedding. 
>> 
>> 21. I've read something by Stewart Holbrook. 
>> 
>> 22. I never drink bottled water. 
>> 
>> 23. I hate pumping my own gas when I visit other states! 
>> 
>> 24. I've returned cans and bottles and immediately bought more beer. 
>> 
>> 25. I've had a 10-minute or longer conversation about an Oregon microbrew. 
>> 
>> 26. I've visited an Oregon winery. 
>> 
>> 27. I've eaten pears or apples off a tree near Hood River. 
>> 
>> 28. I've tasted a hazelnut milkshake from Burgerville. 
>> 
>> 29. I know some of the lyrics to "Louie, Louie." 
>> 
>> 30. I know who Steve Prefontaine was. 
>> 
>> 31. I "know" a professional who uses marijuana regularly. 
>> 
>> 32. I've played Hacky Sack. 
>> 
>> 33. I know who said, "We want you to visit our State of Excitement often.
>> Come again and again. But for heaven's sake, don't move here to live." 
>> 
>> 34. I wince when I see an SUV with a California license plate idling in the
>> parking lot of a real estate office. 
>> 
>> 35. I've started and finished "Sometimes a Great Notion" by Ken Kesey. 
>> 
>> 36. I've read "Livability" by Jonathan Raymond. 
>> 
>> 37. I've read an entire book at Powell's while sitting in the coffee room. 
>> 
>> 38. I've run naked in the Oregon woods, desert or beach. 
>> 
>> 39. I've either fished for salmon or seen salmon spawn in the wild. 
>> 
>> 40. I've seen either a coyote, bear, deer or cougar in the wild. 
>> 
>> 41. I've ridden a bicycle in the past month. 
>> 
>> 42. I've climbed a tree in the past year. 
>> 
>> 43. I've attended the Pendleton Round-Up. 
>> 
>> 44. I've seen the Painted Hills. 
>> 
>> 45. I've visited the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. 
>> 
>> 46. I've attended the Oregon State Fair. 
>> 
>> 47. I've either run the Hood to Coast or biked U.S. 101 or climbed Mount
>> Hood or hiked all or part of the Pacific Crest Trail or surfed in Oregon's
>> oceans or windsurfed in the Columbia River. 
>> 
>> 48. I've cut my own Christmas tree. 
>> 
>> 49. I've ridden in the Oregon City Elevator. 
>> 
>> 50. I never use an umbrella!
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> GroveNet mailing list
>> GroveNet at rdrop.com
>> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>


From a_tom_51 at juno.com  Sun Jan  3 19:10:32 2010
From: a_tom_51 at juno.com (a_tom_51 at juno.com)
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 2010 03:10:32 GMT
Subject: [Grovenet] Hardcore Oregonian quiz
Message-ID: <20100103.191032.20239.0@webmail20.vgs.untd.com>

I scored 32. Do we get extra points if we performed in the Pendleton Round Up? How about playing sousaphone on horseback in the Mounted Band? What fun!

Tom Alexander

 

____________________________________________________________
Diet Help
Cheap Diet Help Tips. Click here.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/c?cp=okxDmnORVSZMRS2KfOF88QAAJ1CORKrrSABr_kse746cCp3FAAYAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADNAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAYQAAAAAA=


From ocollaugh at comcast.net  Sun Jan  3 20:30:47 2010
From: ocollaugh at comcast.net (donkelly)
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 2010 04:30:47 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: [Grovenet] Hardcore Oregonian quiz
In-Reply-To: <20100103.191032.20239.0@webmail20.vgs.untd.com>
Message-ID: <407567107.7072811262579447968.JavaMail.root@sz0024a.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net>

It would have to be a saxophone for me Tom. I play Sousa, but not Sousaphone.
don
----- Original Message -----
From: a tom 51 <a_tom_51 at juno.com>
To: grovenet at rdrop.com
Sent: Mon, 4 Jan 2010 03:10:32 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Hardcore Oregonian quiz

I scored 32. Do we get extra points if we performed in the Pendleton Round Up? How about playing sousaphone on horseback in the Mounted Band? What fun!

Tom Alexander

 

____________________________________________________________
Diet Help
Cheap Diet Help Tips. Click here.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/c?cp=okxDmnORVSZMRS2KfOF88QAAJ1CORKrrSABr_kse746cCp3FAAYAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADNAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAYQAAAAAA=

_______________________________________________
GroveNet mailing list
GroveNet at rdrop.com
http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet


From rab at jurislex.com  Mon Jan  4 10:43:50 2010
From: rab at jurislex.com (Bob Browning)
Date: Mon, 04 Jan 2010 10:43:50 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] Hardcore Oregonian quiz
In-Reply-To: <1525529798.6693211262460224387.JavaMail.root@sz0024a.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net>
References: <1525529798.6693211262460224387.JavaMail.root@sz0024a.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net>
Message-ID: <4B4236E6.20801@jurislex.com>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/attachments/20100104/d46b22eb/attachment.html 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Std Email Signature RAB 3.JPG
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 24675 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : /pipermail/attachments/20100104/d46b22eb/attachment.jpe 

From chopwoodcarrywater at verizon.net  Mon Jan  4 11:00:42 2010
From: chopwoodcarrywater at verizon.net (Julie Larson)
Date: Mon, 04 Jan 2010 11:00:42 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] Hardcore Oregonian quiz
In-Reply-To: <4B4236E6.20801@jurislex.com>
References: <1525529798.6693211262460224387.JavaMail.root@sz0024a.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net>
	<4B4236E6.20801@jurislex.com>
Message-ID: <006101ca8d70$36cdc8f0$a4695ad0$@net>

What about attending the Country Fair, or at least shopping at Saturday
Market? Or scratching your head at someone who isn't incarcerated drinking
Folger's coffee?  Or  bemoaning the strange love these young hipsters have
for Pabst? 

 

From: grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com [mailto:grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com] On
Behalf Of Bob Browning
Sent: Monday, January 04, 2010 10:44 AM
To: Forest Grove local interests list
Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Hardcore Oregonian quiz

 

41, but 16 is dead wrong, since real hardcore Oregonians understand that
sustainable growth of timber once was and should again be our biggest
industry!! Ditto in some way for 31 (yeah, I think I know someone who
regularly uses mj, but real professionals don't smoke period, let alone
"illegal drugs"), 37 (never had that much time in Powell's, except to read a
comic novel - does that count??), and 41 (does having a bike and a
motorcycle in the garage count, but been too nervous to risk my feet, having
diabetes and all??). So, I really think my score should have been 45,
especially since they have not given points for being born here or for
having lived here over 50 years. Plus, I have always said that "Be there no
Oregonian as rabid as the last Californian across the border who now knows
she got hers and wants to keep all the rest out"!!

And Steven, why embarrassed by No. 38 (or should I say embareassed?).
However, the question would have been better if it asked if one has ever
made love on the beach!!

bob "have worked at the rodeo and been in the parade a number of times"
browning



From: Steven  <mailto:NoSpam03 at comcast.net> <NoSpam03 at comcast.net>
To: 'Forest Grove local interests list'  <mailto:grovenet at rdrop.com>
<grovenet at rdrop.com>
Sent: Sat, 2 Jan 2010 19:10:18 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: [Grovenet] Hardcore Oregonian quiz

Embarrassed to say Just about all (even #38). I own an umbrella and held it
for my wife once.

http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2009/12/just_how_hard-core_of_an
_orego.html



 
Take it by yourself or with friends and family. Tally answers of "yes" to
each statement and see how you rate. There is no passing score, but the
higher the mark, the more hardcore you are. 
 
1. I've visited Timberline Lodge. 
 
2. I've picked blackberries. 
 
3. I've visited Fort Clatsop. 
 
4. I've sat around a bonfire on an Oregon coast beach. 
 
5. I've visited the Oregon Country Fair. 
 
6. I've seen a play at the Oregon Shakespeare Festival. 
 
7. I've seen a Portland Trail Blazers game live. 
 
8. I've attended a Civil War football game. 
 
9. I've visited Bonneville Dam. 
 
10. I've visited the Capitol building in Salem. 
 
11. I've walked part of the Oregon Trail. 
 
12. I've visited Crater Lake. 
 
13. I've visited Multnomah Falls. 
 
14. I've visited the Tillamook Cheese Factory. 
 
15. I've visited the Wallowa Mountains. 
 
16. I feel depressed when I see a fresh clear-cut. 
 
17. I've hunted game. 
 
18. I know where Celilo Falls used to be. 
 
19. I've seen "Drugstore Cowboy." 
 
20. I own some article of Pendleton Woolen Mills clothing or bedding. 
 
21. I've read something by Stewart Holbrook. 
 
22. I never drink bottled water. 
 
23. I hate pumping my own gas when I visit other states! 
 
24. I've returned cans and bottles and immediately bought more beer. 
 
25. I've had a 10-minute or longer conversation about an Oregon microbrew. 
 
26. I've visited an Oregon winery. 
 
27. I've eaten pears or apples off a tree near Hood River. 
 
28. I've tasted a hazelnut milkshake from Burgerville. 
 
29. I know some of the lyrics to "Louie, Louie." 
 
30. I know who Steve Prefontaine was. 
 
31. I "know" a professional who uses marijuana regularly. 
 
32. I've played Hacky Sack. 
 
33. I know who said, "We want you to visit our State of Excitement often.
Come again and again. But for heaven's sake, don't move here to live." 
 
34. I wince when I see an SUV with a California license plate idling in the
parking lot of a real estate office. 
 
35. I've started and finished "Sometimes a Great Notion" by Ken Kesey. 
 
36. I've read "Livability" by Jonathan Raymond. 
 
37. I've read an entire book at Powell's while sitting in the coffee room. 
 
38. I've run naked in the Oregon woods, desert or beach. 
 
39. I've either fished for salmon or seen salmon spawn in the wild. 
 
40. I've seen either a coyote, bear, deer or cougar in the wild. 
 
41. I've ridden a bicycle in the past month. 
 
42. I've climbed a tree in the past year. 
 
43. I've attended the Pendleton Round-Up. 
 
44. I've seen the Painted Hills. 
 
45. I've visited the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. 
 
46. I've attended the Oregon State Fair. 
 
47. I've either run the Hood to Coast or biked U.S. 101 or climbed Mount
Hood or hiked all or part of the Pacific Crest Trail or surfed in Oregon's
oceans or windsurfed in the Columbia River. 
 
48. I've cut my own Christmas tree. 
 
49. I've ridden in the Oregon City Elevator. 
 
50. I never use an umbrella!
 
_______________________________________________
GroveNet mailing list
GroveNet at rdrop.com
http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
 
_______________________________________________
GroveNet mailing list
GroveNet at rdrop.com
http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
 



  _____  



 
 
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com 
Version: 9.0.725 / Virus Database: 270.14.124/2599 - Release Date: 01/04/10
00:24:00
 
  

 

-- 


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 24675 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : /pipermail/attachments/20100104/92d5d40a/attachment.jpe 

From phoenixacup at gmail.com  Mon Jan  4 11:01:35 2010
From: phoenixacup at gmail.com (Jane Burch-Pesses)
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 2010 11:01:35 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] 2010
In-Reply-To: <1F6700AC659A4CDF93D3783FADE3F2DF@gerianehzkfhvy>
References: <27567-4B3A53D0-589@storefull-3173.bay.webtv.net>
	<1F6700AC659A4CDF93D3783FADE3F2DF@gerianehzkfhvy>
Message-ID: <d6eeab3d1001041101ic830b75v504385ebd19e7ab2@mail.gmail.com>

Happy first official working day of 2010!  (I know, you have already been
working, but happy first working day, anyway.)

Jane B-P

On Fri, Jan 1, 2010 at 7:05 AM, Geri <g-g-steele at comcast.net> wrote:

> HAPPY 2010!
>
> :-)  Geri
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Alan Domenghini aka an OleHoss
> To: GroveNet at rdrop.com
> Sent: Tuesday, December 29, 2009 11:09 AM
> Subject: [Grovenet] 2010
>
>
> http://community-2.webtv.net/OleHossTreeFarm/2010/
>
> in any case ... HaPpY NeW YeAr
>
> ~A~ :<)
>
>
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>



-- 
Phoenix Acupuncture and Chinese Medicine
Home of the TAO (Team Against Obesity)
www.phoenix-acupuncture.net

From phoenixacup at gmail.com  Mon Jan  4 11:09:32 2010
From: phoenixacup at gmail.com (Jane Burch-Pesses)
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 2010 11:09:32 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] Hardcore Oregonian quiz
In-Reply-To: <002d01ca8bdf$39ebe810$adc3b830$@net>
References: <002d01ca8bdf$39ebe810$adc3b830$@net>
Message-ID: <d6eeab3d1001041109g696fe272v7c0bba6ac9ae10c0@mail.gmail.com>

#50 should be "I can never find my umbrella because I am always taking it
with me and leaving it somewhere."

Jane B-P

On Sat, Jan 2, 2010 at 11:10 AM, Steven <NoSpam03 at comcast.net> wrote:

> Embarrassed to say Just about all (even #38). I own an umbrella and held it
> for my wife once.
>
>
> http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2009/12/just_how_hard-core_of_an
> _orego.html<http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2009/12/just_how_hard-core_of_an%0A_orego.html>
>
>
>
> Take it by yourself or with friends and family. Tally answers of "yes" to
> each statement and see how you rate. There is no passing score, but the
> higher the mark, the more hardcore you are.
>
> 1. I've visited Timberline Lodge.
>
> 2. I've picked blackberries.
>
> 3. I've visited Fort Clatsop.
>
> 4. I've sat around a bonfire on an Oregon coast beach.
>
> 5. I've visited the Oregon Country Fair.
>
> 6. I've seen a play at the Oregon Shakespeare Festival.
>
> 7. I've seen a Portland Trail Blazers game live.
>
> 8. I've attended a Civil War football game.
>
> 9. I've visited Bonneville Dam.
>
> 10. I've visited the Capitol building in Salem.
>
> 11. I've walked part of the Oregon Trail.
>
> 12. I've visited Crater Lake.
>
> 13. I've visited Multnomah Falls.
>
> 14. I've visited the Tillamook Cheese Factory.
>
> 15. I've visited the Wallowa Mountains.
>
> 16. I feel depressed when I see a fresh clear-cut.
>
> 17. I've hunted game.
>
> 18. I know where Celilo Falls used to be.
>
> 19. I've seen "Drugstore Cowboy."
>
> 20. I own some article of Pendleton Woolen Mills clothing or bedding.
>
> 21. I've read something by Stewart Holbrook.
>
> 22. I never drink bottled water.
>
> 23. I hate pumping my own gas when I visit other states!
>
> 24. I've returned cans and bottles and immediately bought more beer.
>
> 25. I've had a 10-minute or longer conversation about an Oregon microbrew.
>
> 26. I've visited an Oregon winery.
>
> 27. I've eaten pears or apples off a tree near Hood River.
>
> 28. I've tasted a hazelnut milkshake from Burgerville.
>
> 29. I know some of the lyrics to "Louie, Louie."
>
> 30. I know who Steve Prefontaine was.
>
> 31. I "know" a professional who uses marijuana regularly.
>
> 32. I've played Hacky Sack.
>
> 33. I know who said, "We want you to visit our State of Excitement often.
> Come again and again. But for heaven's sake, don't move here to live."
>
> 34. I wince when I see an SUV with a California license plate idling in the
> parking lot of a real estate office.
>
> 35. I've started and finished "Sometimes a Great Notion" by Ken Kesey.
>
> 36. I've read "Livability" by Jonathan Raymond.
>
> 37. I've read an entire book at Powell's while sitting in the coffee room.
>
> 38. I've run naked in the Oregon woods, desert or beach.
>
> 39. I've either fished for salmon or seen salmon spawn in the wild.
>
> 40. I've seen either a coyote, bear, deer or cougar in the wild.
>
> 41. I've ridden a bicycle in the past month.
>
> 42. I've climbed a tree in the past year.
>
> 43. I've attended the Pendleton Round-Up.
>
> 44. I've seen the Painted Hills.
>
> 45. I've visited the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge.
>
> 46. I've attended the Oregon State Fair.
>
> 47. I've either run the Hood to Coast or biked U.S. 101 or climbed Mount
> Hood or hiked all or part of the Pacific Crest Trail or surfed in Oregon's
> oceans or windsurfed in the Columbia River.
>
> 48. I've cut my own Christmas tree.
>
> 49. I've ridden in the Oregon City Elevator.
>
> 50. I never use an umbrella!
>
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>



-- 
Phoenix Acupuncture and Chinese Medicine
Home of the TAO (Team Against Obesity)
www.phoenix-acupuncture.net

From chopwoodcarrywater at verizon.net  Mon Jan  4 11:45:26 2010
From: chopwoodcarrywater at verizon.net (Julie Larson)
Date: Mon, 04 Jan 2010 11:45:26 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] Hardcore Oregonian quiz
In-Reply-To: <d6eeab3d1001041109g696fe272v7c0bba6ac9ae10c0@mail.gmail.com>
References: <002d01ca8bdf$39ebe810$adc3b830$@net>
	<d6eeab3d1001041109g696fe272v7c0bba6ac9ae10c0@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <000001ca8d76$76efe110$64cfa330$@net>

Wow, I missed #5. Am I a hardcore Oregonian because I love the rain and look
forward to it?

-----Original Message-----
From: grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com [mailto:grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com] On
Behalf Of Jane Burch-Pesses
Sent: Monday, January 04, 2010 11:10 AM
To: Forest Grove local interests list
Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Hardcore Oregonian quiz

#50 should be "I can never find my umbrella because I am always taking it
with me and leaving it somewhere."

Jane B-P

On Sat, Jan 2, 2010 at 11:10 AM, Steven <NoSpam03 at comcast.net> wrote:

> Embarrassed to say Just about all (even #38). I own an umbrella and held
it
> for my wife once.
>
>
>
http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2009/12/just_how_hard-core_of_an
>
_orego.html<http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2009/12/just_how_har
d-core_of_an%0A_orego.html>
>
>
>
> Take it by yourself or with friends and family. Tally answers of "yes" to
> each statement and see how you rate. There is no passing score, but the
> higher the mark, the more hardcore you are.
>
> 1. I've visited Timberline Lodge.
>
> 2. I've picked blackberries.
>
> 3. I've visited Fort Clatsop.
>
> 4. I've sat around a bonfire on an Oregon coast beach.
>
> 5. I've visited the Oregon Country Fair.
>
> 6. I've seen a play at the Oregon Shakespeare Festival.
>
> 7. I've seen a Portland Trail Blazers game live.
>
> 8. I've attended a Civil War football game.
>
> 9. I've visited Bonneville Dam.
>
> 10. I've visited the Capitol building in Salem.
>
> 11. I've walked part of the Oregon Trail.
>
> 12. I've visited Crater Lake.
>
> 13. I've visited Multnomah Falls.
>
> 14. I've visited the Tillamook Cheese Factory.
>
> 15. I've visited the Wallowa Mountains.
>
> 16. I feel depressed when I see a fresh clear-cut.
>
> 17. I've hunted game.
>
> 18. I know where Celilo Falls used to be.
>
> 19. I've seen "Drugstore Cowboy."
>
> 20. I own some article of Pendleton Woolen Mills clothing or bedding.
>
> 21. I've read something by Stewart Holbrook.
>
> 22. I never drink bottled water.
>
> 23. I hate pumping my own gas when I visit other states!
>
> 24. I've returned cans and bottles and immediately bought more beer.
>
> 25. I've had a 10-minute or longer conversation about an Oregon microbrew.
>
> 26. I've visited an Oregon winery.
>
> 27. I've eaten pears or apples off a tree near Hood River.
>
> 28. I've tasted a hazelnut milkshake from Burgerville.
>
> 29. I know some of the lyrics to "Louie, Louie."
>
> 30. I know who Steve Prefontaine was.
>
> 31. I "know" a professional who uses marijuana regularly.
>
> 32. I've played Hacky Sack.
>
> 33. I know who said, "We want you to visit our State of Excitement often.
> Come again and again. But for heaven's sake, don't move here to live."
>
> 34. I wince when I see an SUV with a California license plate idling in
the
> parking lot of a real estate office.
>
> 35. I've started and finished "Sometimes a Great Notion" by Ken Kesey.
>
> 36. I've read "Livability" by Jonathan Raymond.
>
> 37. I've read an entire book at Powell's while sitting in the coffee room.
>
> 38. I've run naked in the Oregon woods, desert or beach.
>
> 39. I've either fished for salmon or seen salmon spawn in the wild.
>
> 40. I've seen either a coyote, bear, deer or cougar in the wild.
>
> 41. I've ridden a bicycle in the past month.
>
> 42. I've climbed a tree in the past year.
>
> 43. I've attended the Pendleton Round-Up.
>
> 44. I've seen the Painted Hills.
>
> 45. I've visited the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge.
>
> 46. I've attended the Oregon State Fair.
>
> 47. I've either run the Hood to Coast or biked U.S. 101 or climbed Mount
> Hood or hiked all or part of the Pacific Crest Trail or surfed in Oregon's
> oceans or windsurfed in the Columbia River.
>
> 48. I've cut my own Christmas tree.
>
> 49. I've ridden in the Oregon City Elevator.
>
> 50. I never use an umbrella!
>
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>



-- 
Phoenix Acupuncture and Chinese Medicine
Home of the TAO (Team Against Obesity)
www.phoenix-acupuncture.net
_______________________________________________
GroveNet mailing list
GroveNet at rdrop.com
http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet



From phoenixacup at gmail.com  Mon Jan  4 11:10:30 2010
From: phoenixacup at gmail.com (Jane Burch-Pesses)
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 2010 11:10:30 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] Hardcore Oregonian quiz
In-Reply-To: <002d01ca8bdf$39ebe810$adc3b830$@net>
References: <002d01ca8bdf$39ebe810$adc3b830$@net>
Message-ID: <d6eeab3d1001041110s5957baf7m3fedc610c0f5ff83@mail.gmail.com>

Or maybe # 50 should be "I stopped buying umbrella's after losing half a
dozen of them."

On Sat, Jan 2, 2010 at 11:10 AM, Steven <NoSpam03 at comcast.net> wrote:

> Embarrassed to say Just about all (even #38). I own an umbrella and held it
> for my wife once.
>
>
> http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2009/12/just_how_hard-core_of_an
> _orego.html<http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2009/12/just_how_hard-core_of_an%0A_orego.html>
>
>
>
> Take it by yourself or with friends and family. Tally answers of "yes" to
> each statement and see how you rate. There is no passing score, but the
> higher the mark, the more hardcore you are.
>
> 1. I've visited Timberline Lodge.
>
> 2. I've picked blackberries.
>
> 3. I've visited Fort Clatsop.
>
> 4. I've sat around a bonfire on an Oregon coast beach.
>
> 5. I've visited the Oregon Country Fair.
>
> 6. I've seen a play at the Oregon Shakespeare Festival.
>
> 7. I've seen a Portland Trail Blazers game live.
>
> 8. I've attended a Civil War football game.
>
> 9. I've visited Bonneville Dam.
>
> 10. I've visited the Capitol building in Salem.
>
> 11. I've walked part of the Oregon Trail.
>
> 12. I've visited Crater Lake.
>
> 13. I've visited Multnomah Falls.
>
> 14. I've visited the Tillamook Cheese Factory.
>
> 15. I've visited the Wallowa Mountains.
>
> 16. I feel depressed when I see a fresh clear-cut.
>
> 17. I've hunted game.
>
> 18. I know where Celilo Falls used to be.
>
> 19. I've seen "Drugstore Cowboy."
>
> 20. I own some article of Pendleton Woolen Mills clothing or bedding.
>
> 21. I've read something by Stewart Holbrook.
>
> 22. I never drink bottled water.
>
> 23. I hate pumping my own gas when I visit other states!
>
> 24. I've returned cans and bottles and immediately bought more beer.
>
> 25. I've had a 10-minute or longer conversation about an Oregon microbrew.
>
> 26. I've visited an Oregon winery.
>
> 27. I've eaten pears or apples off a tree near Hood River.
>
> 28. I've tasted a hazelnut milkshake from Burgerville.
>
> 29. I know some of the lyrics to "Louie, Louie."
>
> 30. I know who Steve Prefontaine was.
>
> 31. I "know" a professional who uses marijuana regularly.
>
> 32. I've played Hacky Sack.
>
> 33. I know who said, "We want you to visit our State of Excitement often.
> Come again and again. But for heaven's sake, don't move here to live."
>
> 34. I wince when I see an SUV with a California license plate idling in the
> parking lot of a real estate office.
>
> 35. I've started and finished "Sometimes a Great Notion" by Ken Kesey.
>
> 36. I've read "Livability" by Jonathan Raymond.
>
> 37. I've read an entire book at Powell's while sitting in the coffee room.
>
> 38. I've run naked in the Oregon woods, desert or beach.
>
> 39. I've either fished for salmon or seen salmon spawn in the wild.
>
> 40. I've seen either a coyote, bear, deer or cougar in the wild.
>
> 41. I've ridden a bicycle in the past month.
>
> 42. I've climbed a tree in the past year.
>
> 43. I've attended the Pendleton Round-Up.
>
> 44. I've seen the Painted Hills.
>
> 45. I've visited the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge.
>
> 46. I've attended the Oregon State Fair.
>
> 47. I've either run the Hood to Coast or biked U.S. 101 or climbed Mount
> Hood or hiked all or part of the Pacific Crest Trail or surfed in Oregon's
> oceans or windsurfed in the Columbia River.
>
> 48. I've cut my own Christmas tree.
>
> 49. I've ridden in the Oregon City Elevator.
>
> 50. I never use an umbrella!
>
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>



-- 
Phoenix Acupuncture and Chinese Medicine
Home of the TAO (Team Against Obesity)
www.phoenix-acupuncture.net

From khourym at verizon.net  Mon Jan  4 13:42:07 2010
From: khourym at verizon.net (Martha Khoury)
Date: Mon, 04 Jan 2010 13:42:07 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] Fwd: RD STEEVES IMPORTS TOTAL LIQUIDATION AUCTION
	JANUARY 16, 2010
References: <201001042031.o04KVigg025228@p3nlh068.shr.prod.phx3.secureserver.net>
Message-ID: <57AA849A-8F25-4CAD-BA3C-F9DA3A451D25@verizon.net>

FYI -- Martha K.

Begin forwarded message:

> From: rob <rdsteeves at coho.net>
> Date: January 4, 2010 12:31:43 PM PST
> To: khourym at verizon.net
> Subject: RD STEEVES IMPORTS TOTAL LIQUIDATION AUCTION JANUARY 16, 2010
>
> RD Steeves Imports announces our Total Liquidation Auction!
> The auction will be held here in our building in downtown Yamhill at  
> 140 W Main Street.
> Saturday January 16, 2010
> Preview 9am
> Auction  10am
> Everything will be sold with no reserves!
> Our remaining inventory includes some lovely mirror back sideboards,
> darling dining tables, nice nightstands, sweet small tables, and  
> cute coffee tables.
> The styles include Arts and Crafts, Art Nouveau, Art Deco  and Mid- 
> Century Modern  pieces.
> All our smalls will be lotted for great bargains in tools,  
> glassware, china, plus signs and all sorts of odds and ends.
> We are also selling store fixtures including display cases,  
> bookshelves, clothes racks, and counters.
> The workshop is being cleaned out and there will be some hardware as  
> well as furniture pieces and parts for the handy and creative.
> The auction will be conducted by Ann and Marla of Legacy Auction and  
> Estate Services.   www.legacyauction.com
> Food and Beverage services will be provided by the T&E General Store  
> of Yamhill.
> We hope to see you here to help us clean out the building!
>
>
> Happy New Year!
> Cheers!
> Rob Steeves
> RD Steeves Imports
> 140 W Main Street
> PO Box 504
> Yamhill, Oregon 97148
> 503-662-3999<br><a href="http://rdsteevesimports.com/inout_mailing_list_manager/unsub.php?id=8122&t=1242616138&cid=0 
> ">Click Here</a>  to unsubscribe from our mailing list.<br><br><br>


From obrzl at verizon.net  Tue Jan  5 09:41:00 2010
From: obrzl at verizon.net (mark oberzil)
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 2010 09:41:00 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [Grovenet] still looking
Message-ID: <316035.21932.qm@web84207.mail.re3.yahoo.com>

Three eviction orphaned cats are still with us, still needing a home,?but still not?acceptable to our three elder cats.? 
?
They have managed to survive in the cold and rain with only minimal shelter,?and remain polite, extremely tame and affectionate.? 
?
We could?help with?the start-up costs if someone would be willing to provide a good home for these lovely cats.
?
Mark Oberzil
503 357 5093

From jllesq at yahoo.com  Tue Jan  5 11:02:07 2010
From: jllesq at yahoo.com (Jim Lucas)
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 2010 11:02:07 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [Grovenet] Rose Bowl - Happy New Year
In-Reply-To: <111109.18380.qm@web112118.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <546812.85508.qm@web52906.mail.re2.yahoo.com>

Go Bucks. I was at OSU in 79 also. Jim
The information contained in this email transmission is confidential and is intended only for the use of the individual or entity intended to receive it. It may contain information protected by the attorney-client privilege. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email transmission in error, please immediately notify the sender by return email and delete this transmission. 

Jim L. Lucas 
Attorney at Law 
1911 Mountain View Lane, Suite 400
Forest Grove, Oregon 97116 
Telephone: 503-359-1201 
Fax: 503-359-1206


--- On Sun, 1/3/10, Allen Warren <osubuckeye59 at yahoo.com> wrote:

> From: Allen Warren <osubuckeye59 at yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Rose Bowl - Happy New Year
> To: "Forest Grove local interests list" <grovenet at rdrop.com>
> Date: Sunday, January 3, 2010, 10:25 AM
> January 1 was a beautiful day
> To watch the Bucks and Ducks go play
> 
> It was warm and sunny in Pasadena town
> as my beloved Bucks laid the hammer down!
> 
>  
> This year's Rose Bowl was special for me to attend: it was
> 30 years to the day I attended my first Rose Bowl, being
> fortunate enough to both march and play in the Ohio State
> University Marching Band.? Even though we lost a close
> one to USC that year (17-16), I'll never forget the
> experience of marching on that big, red beautiful rose in
> the middle of the field.? This year's Rose Bowl was
> fantastic, and all the Duck fans I ran into were extremely
> kind.? There's no doubt in my mind Oregon could easily
> be back either at the Rose Bowl or potentially in the BCS
> National game next year.
> 
> 
> Allen Warren
> 
> 
> 
> ________________________________
> From: Geri <g-g-steele at comcast.net>
> To: Forest Grove local interests list <grovenet at rdrop.com>
> Sent: Fri, January 1, 2010 12:38:45 PM
> Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Rose Bowl - Happy New Year
> 
> LOL, am enjoying the rhymes, guys. :)
> 
> Geri
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "mark oberzil" <obrzl at verizon.net>
> To: "Forest Grove local interests list" <grovenet at rdrop.com>
> Sent: Friday, January 01, 2010 10:55 AM
> Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Rose Bowl - Happy New Year
> 
> 
> Aye, this year's bowl,
> 'twill, soon be struck,
> and fair called fowl,
> to many a cluck.
> 
> The hour is late
> soon answers fate
> will passed be the Bucks
> or soup, the Ducks?
> 
> --- On Fri, 1/1/10, Julie Larson <chopwoodcarrywater at verizon.net>
> wrote:
> 
> 
> From: Julie Larson <chopwoodcarrywater at verizon.net>
> Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Rose Bowl - Happy New Year
> To: "'Forest Grove local interests list'" <grovenet at rdrop.com>
> Date: Friday, January 1, 2010, 6:34 PM
> 
> 
> My typical posture on all things football is an ardent
> desire to somehow see
> both teams lose. Short of that, Allen, I honestly wish you
> beloved Bucks the
> very best. 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com
> [mailto:grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com]
> On
> Behalf Of buckeye53 at aol.com
> Sent: Friday, January 01, 2010 2:53 AM
> To: grovenet at rdrop.com
> Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Rose Bowl - Happy New Year
> 
> 
> This Rose Bowl game
> Leaves my world in flux
> For so many years
> I've loved the Ducks
> 
> Now a dilemma exists
> And at the crux
> Lies a heart of Scarlet
> That screams GO BUCKS !!!
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bob Browning <rab at jurislex.com>
> To: Forest Grove local interests list <grovenet at rdrop.com>
> Sent: Wed, Dec 30, 2009 1:36 pm
> Subject: Re: [Grovenet] [Fwd: Pew Forum: How Religious Is
> Your State?]
> 
> 
> I think a better statement would be as follows:
> 
> 
> "In the final judgment, will we be judged by our profession
> of faith, or by
> our treatment of the least among us?"
> The reason I suggest the change is because of the
> televangelists who tell us
> (or at least strongly suggest) that they are going to
> heaven and that we can
> too if only we make a pledge to their latest venture.
> However, if God does
> exist and if Jesus is his son, the Bible makes it clear
> that we ourselves do
> not make the decision as to who goes and who stays!! 
> 
> bob "have a good trip" browning
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> David Morelli wrote: 
> Bob,
> Perhaps, a better correlative question is:
> "In the final judgement, will we be judged by our faith, or
> by our treatment
> of the least among us?"
> David
> 
> 
> On Dec 30, 2009, at 11:20 AM, Bob Browning wrote:
> 
> And note that, of all of the states above the national
> average, all but NC,
> IN, VA, FL, and MD/DC (5 out of 21) voted for McCain/Palin,
> while in the
> bottom 25 of the listed states, only AK, MT/WY, AZ, and
> ND/SD voted for
> McCain/Palin. Thus, one might conclude that, based on gross
> analysis,
> importance of religion in one's life is probably the single
> most important
> correlative of whether one is likely to vote R or D!!
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> roveNet mailing list
> roveNet at rdrop.com
> ttp://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
> 
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
> 
> 
> 
> ? ? ? 
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
> 


      


From rab at jurislex.com  Wed Jan  6 11:16:02 2010
From: rab at jurislex.com (Bob Browning)
Date: Wed, 06 Jan 2010 11:16:02 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] Why I'm opposed to the death penalty . . .
Message-ID: <4B44E172.2020407@jurislex.com>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/attachments/20100106/8504ee05/attachment.html 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: logo.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 3861 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : /pipermail/attachments/20100106/8504ee05/attachment.gif 

From feralcattamer at yahoo.com  Wed Jan  6 11:54:49 2010
From: feralcattamer at yahoo.com (Holly T.)
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 2010 11:54:49 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [Grovenet] Why I'm opposed to the death penalty . . .
In-Reply-To: <4B44E172.2020407@jurislex.com>
References: <4B44E172.2020407@jurislex.com>
Message-ID: <847541.51701.qm@web56106.mail.re3.yahoo.com>

Well yeah, Bob! 

A good book to read about the injustices of the death penalty is Derrick Jensen's The Culture of Make-Believe. Besides the fact that the death penalty occasionally takes out innocent people, statistics show that black defendants stand almost a 40 percent greater chance of being put to death over non-black defendants. Racism is definitely a huge part of who is put to death and who is not in our fine country. See:

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/death-penalty-black-and-white-who-lives-who-dies-who-decides#The%20Raw%20Data

I do not understand why politically conservative states such as Texas are so hell-bent on putting people to death. Purely from a financial standpoint, it costs a great deal more to incarcerate an inmate on death row (and go through the appeals process) than to incarcerate them for life in a maximum security prison. Depending upon the state, it can cost three times as much to sentence an inmate to death. See:

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/costs-death-penalty

All I can think is that the death penalty is all about vengeance and nothing else. 

Is support of vengeance the mark of a civilized society? I do not think so. 

I believe the only way to put an end to the death penalty in America is to push it to the other extreme and televise all executions during the kiddie hour. Show everyone--even three-year olds--just how horrible it is to kill the accused. Show just how uncivilized a country we live in. I predict that the death penalty would come to an abrupt end if people had easier access to watching it happen in living color.

When we watch movies that take place in "uncivilized" countries or in days gone by that show people gathered around to watch the spectacle of an execution, most of us, I'd like to think, would consider that barbaric, right? How is sheltering and censoring society from view of executions so as to sanitize the process any better? When the death penalty was permitted in Oregon, I saw it as a huge step backward on the road to a civilized society. Violence begets more violence--no matter what side of "justice" you are on.

Holly








________________________________
From: Bob Browning <rab at jurislex.com>
To: Grovenet <grovenet at rdrop.com>
Sent: Wed, January 6, 2010 11:16:02 AM
Subject: [Grovenet] Why I'm opposed to the death penalty . . .


Here's just one more reason why I am opposed to
the death penalty. I think the worst thing a society can do is take the
life of an innocent man!!

bob
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 
Scientific
American Mind -  January 6, 2010
Why Science Tells Us Not to Rely on Eyewitness Accounts
Eyewitness testimony is fickle and, all too often,
shockingly inaccurate
By Hal Arkowitz and Scott O. Lilienfeld 
&lt;SCRIPT language='JavaScript1.1'
SRC="http://ad.doubleclick.net/adj/N5002.collectivemedia/B2687513.8;abr=!ie;sz=300x250;ord=6263460?"&gt;
&lt;/SCRIPT&gt;
&lt;NOSCRIPT&gt;
&lt;A
HREF="http://ad.doubleclick.net/jump/N5002.collectivemedia/B2687513.8;abr=!ie4;abr=!ie5;sz=300x250;ord=6263460?"&gt;
&lt;IMG
SRC="http://ad.doubleclick.net/ad/N5002..collectivemedia/B2687513.8;abr=!ie4;abr=!ie5;sz=300x250;ord=6263460?" BORDER=0 WIDTH=300 HEIGHT=250 ALT="Click
Here"&gt;&lt;/A&gt;
&lt;/NOSCRIPT&gt; 
In 1984 Kirk Bloodsworth was convicted of the rape and murder of a
nine-year-old girl and sentenced to the gas chamber?an outcome that
rested largely on the testimony of five eyewitnesses. After Bloodsworth
served nine years in prison, DNA testing proved him to be innocent.
Such devastating mistakes by eyewitnesses are not rare, according to a
report by the Innocence Project, an organization affiliated with the
Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law at Yeshiva University that uses DNA
testing to exonerate those wrongfully convicted of crimes. Since the
1990s, when DNA testing was first introduced, Innocence Project
researchers have reported that 73 percent of the 239 convictions
overturned through DNA testing were based on eyewitness testimony. One
third of these overturned cases rested on the testimony of two or more
mistaken eyewitnesses. How could so many eyewitnesses be wrong?
Eyewitness identification typically involves selecting the alleged
perpetrator from a police lineup, but it can also be based on police
sketches and other methods. Soon after selecting a suspect,
eyewitnesses are asked to make a formal statement confirming the ID and
to try to recall any other details about events surrounding the crime.
At the trial, which may be years later, eyewitnesses usually testify in
court. Because individuals with certain psychological disorders, such
as antisocial personality disorder and substance dependence, are at
high risk for criminal involvement, they are also at heightened risk
for false identifications by eyewitnesses.
Surveys show that most jurors place heavy weight on eyewitness
testimony when deciding whether a suspect is guilty. But although
eyewitness reports are sometimes accurate, jurors should not accept
them uncritically because of the many factors that can bias such
reports. For example, jurors tend to give more weight to the testimony
of eyewitnesses who report that they are very sure about their
identifications even though most studies indicate that highly confident
eyewitnesses are generally only slightly more accurate?and sometimes no
more so?than those who are less confident. In addition to educating
jurors about the uncertainties surrounding eyewitness testimony,
adhering to specific rules for the process of identifying suspects can
make that testimony more accurate.
Reconstructing Memories
The uncritical acceptance of eyewitness accounts may stem from a
popular misconception of how memory works. Many people believe that
human memory works like a video recorder: the mind records events and
then, on cue, plays back an exact replica of them. On the contrary,
psychologists have found that memories are reconstructed rather than
played back each time we recall them. The act of remembering, says
eminent memory researcher and psychologist Elizabeth F. Loftus of the
University of California, Irvine, is ?more akin to putting puzzle
pieces together than retrieving a video recording.? Even questioning by
a lawyer can alter the witness?s testimony because fragments of the
memory may unknowingly be combined with information provided by the
questioner, leading to inaccurate recall.
Many researchers have created false memories in normal individuals;
what is more, many of these subjects are certain that the memories are
real. In one well-known study, Loftus and her colleague Jacqueline
Pickrell gave subjects written accounts of four events, three of which
they had actually experienced. The fourth story was fiction; it
centered on the subject being lost in a mall or another public place
when he or she was between four and six years old. A relative provided
realistic details for the false story, such as a description of the
mall at which the subject?s parents shopped. After reading each story,
subjects were asked to write down what else they remembered about the
incident or to indicate that they did not remember it at all.
Remarkably about one third of the subjects reported partially or fully
remembering the false event.. In two follow-up interviews, 25 percent
still claimed that they remembered the untrue story, a figure
consistent with the findings of similar studies.
Given the dangers of mistaken convictions based on faulty eyewitness
testimony, how can we minimize such errors? The Innocence Project has
proposed legislation to improve the accuracy of eyewitness IDs. These
proposals include videotaping the identification procedure so that
juries can determine if it was conducted properly, putting individuals
in the lineup who resemble the witness?s description of the
perpetrator, informing the viewer of the lineup that the perpetrator
may or may not be in it, and ensuring that the person administering the
lineup or other identification procedure does not know who the suspect
is. Although only a few cities and states have adopted laws to improve
the accuracy of eyewitness identifications, there seems to be a growing
interest in doing so.
Expert Testimony
In addition, allowing experts on eyewitness identification to testify
in court could educate juries and perhaps lead to more measured
evaluation of the testimony. Most U.S. jurisdictions disallow such
experts in courtrooms on the grounds that laboratory-based eyewitness
research does not apply to the courtroom and that, in any case, its
conclusions are mostly common sense and therefore not very
enlightening. Yet psychologist Gary Wells of Iowa State University and
his colleague Lisa Hasel have amassed considerable evidence showing
that the experimental findings do apply to courtroom testimony and that
they are often counterintuitive.
Science can and should inform ?judicial processes to improve the
accuracy and assessment of eyewitness accounts. We are seeing some
small steps in this direction, but our courts still have a long way to
go to better ensure that innocent people are not punished because of
flaws in this very influential type of evidence.
Error-Prone IDs
A number of factors can reduce the accuracy of eyewitness
identifications. Here are some of them:
	* Extreme witness stress at the crime scene or during the
identification process.
	* Presence of weapons at the crime (because they can intensify
stress and distract witnesses).
	* Use of a disguise by the perpetrator such as a mask or wig.
	* A racial disparity between the witness and the suspect.
	* Brief viewing times at the lineup or during other identification
procedures.
	* A lack of distinctive characteristics of the suspect such as
tattoos or extreme height.
Note: This story was originally printed with the title "Do the
"Eyes" Have It?"



      

From allnutt at verizon.net  Wed Jan  6 12:07:24 2010
From: allnutt at verizon.net (Katie Allnutt)
Date: Wed, 06 Jan 2010 12:07:24 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] Why I'm opposed to the death penalty . . .
In-Reply-To: <4B44E172.2020407@jurislex.com>
References: <4B44E172.2020407@jurislex.com>
Message-ID: <3E9F9667-1AAD-4AA0-BE3C-479D18038DE5@verizon.net>

The experience of instant replay in sports is another good example of  
why we should question what we see  as witnesses. There are paid  
referees on the field and they are trained to see things but even  
with training and experience, if there are multiple refs watching the  
same play they can disagree with each other and disagree with the  
cameras.

And how many times have we come home wanting to recount the story of  
the crazy driver we encountered on the drive home and realized that  
even though it caught our attention we still didn't notice what kind  
of car it was or how many people were in the car or some other detail  
that might be significant if we were actually going to be witnesses.  
We have very selective memories that are easily lead astray by simple  
suggestions from others or from replaying things in our minds.

I agree, we would be better off if we saved our court system and jail  
system a lot of money and did away with the death penalty. As life  
prisoners get older they miss more and more things in the lives of  
their friends and family and the punishment gets more severe.

Katie

On Jan 6, 2010, at 11:16 AM, Bob Browning wrote:

> Here's just one more reason why I am opposed to the death penalty.  
> I think the worst thing a society can do is take the life of an  
> innocent man!!
>
> bob
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> <logo.gif>
> Scientific American Mind -  January 6, 2010
>
> Why Science Tells Us Not to Rely on Eyewitness Accounts
>
> Eyewitness testimony is fickle and, all too often, shockingly  
> inaccurate
>
> By Hal Arkowitz and Scott O. Lilienfeld
>
>
> In 1984 Kirk Bloodsworth was convicted of the rape and murder of a  
> nine-year-old girl and sentenced to the gas chamber?an outcome that  
> rested largely on the testimony of five eyewitnesses. After  
> Bloodsworth served nine years in prison, DNA testing proved him to  
> be innocent. Such devastating mistakes by eyewitnesses are not  
> rare, according to a report by the Innocence Project, an  
> organization affiliated with the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law  
> at Yeshiva University that uses DNA testing to exonerate those  
> wrongfully convicted of crimes. Since the 1990s, when DNA testing  
> was first introduced, Innocence Project researchers have reported  
> that 73 percent of the 239 convictions overturned through DNA  
> testing were based on eyewitness testimony. One third of these  
> overturned cases rested on the testimony of two or more mistaken  
> eyewitnesses. How could so many eyewitnesses be wrong?
>
> Eyewitness identification typically involves selecting the alleged  
> perpetrator from a police lineup, but it can also be based on  
> police sketches and other methods. Soon after selecting a suspect,  
> eyewitnesses are asked to make a formal statement confirming the ID  
> and to try to recall any other details about events surrounding the  
> crime. At the trial, which may be years later, eyewitnesses usually  
> testify in court. Because individuals with certain psychological  
> disorders, such as antisocial personality disorder and substance  
> dependence, are at high risk for criminal involvement, they are  
> also at heightened risk for false identifications by eyewitnesses.
>
> Surveys show that most jurors place heavy weight on eyewitness  
> testimony when deciding whether a suspect is guilty. But although  
> eyewitness reports are sometimes accurate, jurors should not accept  
> them uncritically because of the many factors that can bias such  
> reports. For example, jurors tend to give more weight to the  
> testimony of eyewitnesses who report that they are very sure about  
> their identifications even though most studies indicate that highly  
> confident eyewitnesses are generally only slightly more accurate? 
> and sometimes no more so?than those who are less confident. In  
> addition to educating jurors about the uncertainties surrounding  
> eyewitness testimony, adhering to specific rules for the process of  
> identifying suspects can make that testimony more accurate.
>
> Reconstructing Memories
> The uncritical acceptance of eyewitness accounts may stem from a  
> popular misconception of how memory works. Many people believe that  
> human memory works like a video recorder: the mind records events  
> and then, on cue, plays back an exact replica of them. On the  
> contrary, psychologists have found that memories are reconstructed  
> rather than played back each time we recall them. The act of  
> remembering, says eminent memory researcher and psychologist  
> Elizabeth F. Loftus of the University of California, Irvine, is  
> ?more akin to putting puzzle pieces together than retrieving a  
> video recording.? Even questioning by a lawyer can alter the  
> witness?s testimony because fragments of the memory may unknowingly  
> be combined with information provided by the questioner, leading to  
> inaccurate recall.
>
> Many researchers have created false memories in normal individuals;  
> what is more, many of these subjects are certain that the memories  
> are real. In one well-known study, Loftus and her colleague  
> Jacqueline Pickrell gave subjects written accounts of four events,  
> three of which they had actually experienced. The fourth story was  
> fiction; it centered on the subject being lost in a mall or another  
> public place when he or she was between four and six years old. A  
> relative provided realistic details for the false story, such as a  
> description of the mall at which the subject?s parents shopped.  
> After reading each story, subjects were asked to write down what  
> else they remembered about the incident or to indicate that they  
> did not remember it at all. Remarkably about one third of the  
> subjects reported partially or fully remembering the false event.  
> In two follow-up interviews, 25 percent still claimed that they  
> remembered the untrue story, a figure consistent with the findings  
> of similar studies.
>
> Given the dangers of mistaken convictions based on faulty  
> eyewitness testimony, how can we minimize such errors? The  
> Innocence Project has proposed legislation to improve the accuracy  
> of eyewitness IDs. These proposals include videotaping the  
> identification procedure so that juries can determine if it was  
> conducted properly, putting individuals in the lineup who resemble  
> the witness?s description of the perpetrator, informing the viewer  
> of the lineup that the perpetrator may or may not be in it, and  
> ensuring that the person administering the lineup or other  
> identification procedure does not know who the suspect is. Although  
> only a few cities and states have adopted laws to improve the  
> accuracy of eyewitness identifications, there seems to be a growing  
> interest in doing so.
>
> Expert Testimony
> In addition, allowing experts on eyewitness identification to  
> testify in court could educate juries and perhaps lead to more  
> measured evaluation of the testimony. Most U.S. jurisdictions  
> disallow such experts in courtrooms on the grounds that laboratory- 
> based eyewitness research does not apply to the courtroom and that,  
> in any case, its conclusions are mostly common sense and therefore  
> not very enlightening. Yet psychologist Gary Wells of Iowa State  
> University and his colleague Lisa Hasel have amassed considerable  
> evidence showing that the experimental findings do apply to  
> courtroom testimony and that they are often counterintuitive.
>
> Science can and should inform judicial processes to improve the  
> accuracy and assessment of eyewitness accounts. We are seeing some  
> small steps in this direction, but our courts still have a long way  
> to go to better ensure that innocent people are not punished  
> because of flaws in this very influential type of evidence.
>
> Error-Prone IDs
> A number of factors can reduce the accuracy of eyewitness  
> identifications. Here are some of them:
>
> Extreme witness stress at the crime scene or during the  
> identification process.
> Presence of weapons at the crime (because they can intensify stress  
> and distract witnesses).
> Use of a disguise by the perpetrator such as a mask or wig.
> A racial disparity between the witness and the suspect.
> Brief viewing times at the lineup or during other identification  
> procedures.
> A lack of distinctive characteristics of the suspect such as  
> tattoos or extreme height.
> Note: This story was originally printed with the title "Do the  
> "Eyes" Have It?"
>
>
> <logo.gif>
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet


From edavie at verizon.net  Wed Jan  6 14:10:04 2010
From: edavie at verizon.net (Ed Davie)
Date: Wed, 06 Jan 2010 14:10:04 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] Why I'm opposed to the death penalty . . .
References: <4B44E172.2020407@jurislex.com>
	<847541.51701.qm@web56106.mail.re3.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <E50904304D5C4244BFCC5C504ABEC37E@700x>

Well said, Holly!
Ed


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Holly T." <feralcattamer at yahoo.com>
To: "Forest Grove local interests list" <grovenet at rdrop.com>
Sent: Wednesday, January 06, 2010 11:54 AM
Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Why I'm opposed to the death penalty . . .


> Well yeah, Bob!
>
> A good book to read about the injustices of the death penalty is Derrick 
> Jensen's The Culture of Make-Believe. Besides the fact that the death 
> penalty occasionally takes out innocent people, statistics show that black 
> defendants stand almost a 40 percent greater chance of being put to death 
> over non-black defendants. Racism is definitely a huge part of who is put 
> to death and who is not in our fine country. See:
>
> http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/death-penalty-black-and-white-who-lives-who-dies-who-decides#The%20Raw%20Data
>
> I do not understand why politically conservative states such as Texas are 
> so hell-bent on putting people to death. Purely from a financial 
> standpoint, it costs a great deal more to incarcerate an inmate on death 
> row (and go through the appeals process) than to incarcerate them for life 
> in a maximum security prison. Depending upon the state, it can cost three 
> times as much to sentence an inmate to death. See:
>
> http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/costs-death-penalty
>
> All I can think is that the death penalty is all about vengeance and 
> nothing else.
>
> Is support of vengeance the mark of a civilized society? I do not think 
> so.
>
> I believe the only way to put an end to the death penalty in America is to 
> push it to the other extreme and televise all executions during the kiddie 
> hour. Show everyone--even three-year olds--just how horrible it is to kill 
> the accused. Show just how uncivilized a country we live in. I predict 
> that the death penalty would come to an abrupt end if people had easier 
> access to watching it happen in living color.
>
> When we watch movies that take place in "uncivilized" countries or in days 
> gone by that show people gathered around to watch the spectacle of an 
> execution, most of us, I'd like to think, would consider that barbaric, 
> right? How is sheltering and censoring society from view of executions so 
> as to sanitize the process any better? When the death penalty was 
> permitted in Oregon, I saw it as a huge step backward on the road to a 
> civilized society. Violence begets more violence--no matter what side of 
> "justice" you are on.
>
> Holly
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Bob Browning <rab at jurislex.com>
> To: Grovenet <grovenet at rdrop.com>
> Sent: Wed, January 6, 2010 11:16:02 AM
> Subject: [Grovenet] Why I'm opposed to the death penalty . . .
>
>
> Here's just one more reason why I am opposed to
> the death penalty. I think the worst thing a society can do is take the
> life of an innocent man!!
>
> bob
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
>
> Scientific
> American Mind -  January 6, 2010
> Why Science Tells Us Not to Rely on Eyewitness Accounts
> Eyewitness testimony is fickle and, all too often,
> shockingly inaccurate
> By Hal Arkowitz and Scott O. Lilienfeld
> &lt;SCRIPT language='JavaScript1.1'
> SRC="http://ad.doubleclick.net/adj/N5002.collectivemedia/B2687513.8;abr=!ie;sz=300x250;ord=6263460?"&gt;
> &lt;/SCRIPT&gt;
> &lt;NOSCRIPT&gt;
> &lt;A
> HREF="http://ad.doubleclick.net/jump/N5002.collectivemedia/B2687513.8;abr=!ie4;abr=!ie5;sz=300x250;ord=6263460?"&gt;
> &lt;IMG
> SRC="http://ad.doubleclick.net/ad/N5002..collectivemedia/B2687513.8;abr=!ie4;abr=!ie5;sz=300x250;ord=6263460?" 
> BORDER=0 WIDTH=300 HEIGHT=250 ALT="Click
> Here"&gt;&lt;/A&gt;
> &lt;/NOSCRIPT&gt;
> In 1984 Kirk Bloodsworth was convicted of the rape and murder of a
> nine-year-old girl and sentenced to the gas chamber?an outcome that
> rested largely on the testimony of five eyewitnesses. After Bloodsworth
> served nine years in prison, DNA testing proved him to be innocent.
> Such devastating mistakes by eyewitnesses are not rare, according to a
> report by the Innocence Project, an organization affiliated with the
> Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law at Yeshiva University that uses DNA
> testing to exonerate those wrongfully convicted of crimes. Since the
> 1990s, when DNA testing was first introduced, Innocence Project
> researchers have reported that 73 percent of the 239 convictions
> overturned through DNA testing were based on eyewitness testimony. One
> third of these overturned cases rested on the testimony of two or more
> mistaken eyewitnesses. How could so many eyewitnesses be wrong?
> Eyewitness identification typically involves selecting the alleged
> perpetrator from a police lineup, but it can also be based on police
> sketches and other methods. Soon after selecting a suspect,
> eyewitnesses are asked to make a formal statement confirming the ID and
> to try to recall any other details about events surrounding the crime.
> At the trial, which may be years later, eyewitnesses usually testify in
> court. Because individuals with certain psychological disorders, such
> as antisocial personality disorder and substance dependence, are at
> high risk for criminal involvement, they are also at heightened risk
> for false identifications by eyewitnesses.
> Surveys show that most jurors place heavy weight on eyewitness
> testimony when deciding whether a suspect is guilty. But although
> eyewitness reports are sometimes accurate, jurors should not accept
> them uncritically because of the many factors that can bias such
> reports. For example, jurors tend to give more weight to the testimony
> of eyewitnesses who report that they are very sure about their
> identifications even though most studies indicate that highly confident
> eyewitnesses are generally only slightly more accurate?and sometimes no
> more so?than those who are less confident. In addition to educating
> jurors about the uncertainties surrounding eyewitness testimony,
> adhering to specific rules for the process of identifying suspects can
> make that testimony more accurate.
> Reconstructing Memories
> The uncritical acceptance of eyewitness accounts may stem from a
> popular misconception of how memory works. Many people believe that
> human memory works like a video recorder: the mind records events and
> then, on cue, plays back an exact replica of them. On the contrary,
> psychologists have found that memories are reconstructed rather than
> played back each time we recall them. The act of remembering, says
> eminent memory researcher and psychologist Elizabeth F. Loftus of the
> University of California, Irvine, is ?more akin to putting puzzle
> pieces together than retrieving a video recording.? Even questioning by
> a lawyer can alter the witness?s testimony because fragments of the
> memory may unknowingly be combined with information provided by the
> questioner, leading to inaccurate recall.
> Many researchers have created false memories in normal individuals;
> what is more, many of these subjects are certain that the memories are
> real. In one well-known study, Loftus and her colleague Jacqueline
> Pickrell gave subjects written accounts of four events, three of which
> they had actually experienced. The fourth story was fiction; it
> centered on the subject being lost in a mall or another public place
> when he or she was between four and six years old. A relative provided
> realistic details for the false story, such as a description of the
> mall at which the subject?s parents shopped. After reading each story,
> subjects were asked to write down what else they remembered about the
> incident or to indicate that they did not remember it at all.
> Remarkably about one third of the subjects reported partially or fully
> remembering the false event.. In two follow-up interviews, 25 percent
> still claimed that they remembered the untrue story, a figure
> consistent with the findings of similar studies.
> Given the dangers of mistaken convictions based on faulty eyewitness
> testimony, how can we minimize such errors? The Innocence Project has
> proposed legislation to improve the accuracy of eyewitness IDs. These
> proposals include videotaping the identification procedure so that
> juries can determine if it was conducted properly, putting individuals
> in the lineup who resemble the witness?s description of the
> perpetrator, informing the viewer of the lineup that the perpetrator
> may or may not be in it, and ensuring that the person administering the
> lineup or other identification procedure does not know who the suspect
> is. Although only a few cities and states have adopted laws to improve
> the accuracy of eyewitness identifications, there seems to be a growing
> interest in doing so.
> Expert Testimony
> In addition, allowing experts on eyewitness identification to testify
> in court could educate juries and perhaps lead to more measured
> evaluation of the testimony. Most U.S. jurisdictions disallow such
> experts in courtrooms on the grounds that laboratory-based eyewitness
> research does not apply to the courtroom and that, in any case, its
> conclusions are mostly common sense and therefore not very
> enlightening. Yet psychologist Gary Wells of Iowa State University and
> his colleague Lisa Hasel have amassed considerable evidence showing
> that the experimental findings do apply to courtroom testimony and that
> they are often counterintuitive.
> Science can and should inform ?judicial processes to improve the
> accuracy and assessment of eyewitness accounts. We are seeing some
> small steps in this direction, but our courts still have a long way to
> go to better ensure that innocent people are not punished because of
> flaws in this very influential type of evidence.
> Error-Prone IDs
> A number of factors can reduce the accuracy of eyewitness
> identifications. Here are some of them:
> * Extreme witness stress at the crime scene or during the
> identification process.
> * Presence of weapons at the crime (because they can intensify
> stress and distract witnesses).
> * Use of a disguise by the perpetrator such as a mask or wig.
> * A racial disparity between the witness and the suspect.
> * Brief viewing times at the lineup or during other identification
> procedures.
> * A lack of distinctive characteristics of the suspect such as
> tattoos or extreme height.
> Note: This story was originally printed with the title "Do the
> "Eyes" Have It?"
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
> 



From whatsupy2k at yahoo.com  Fri Jan  8 14:31:46 2010
From: whatsupy2k at yahoo.com (Vickie Madeoneup)
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2010 14:31:46 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [Grovenet] Forest Grove Community School open enrollment
In-Reply-To: <849746.3018.qm@web84201.mail.re3.yahoo.com>
References: <849746.3018.qm@web84201.mail.re3.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <242996.57621.qm@web112410.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>

                                                                                Open Enrollment for grades 1st through 12th  
January 15th 2010
through April 1st 2010
503-359-4600       www.fgcschool.org
 information at fgcschool.org
The
Forest Grove Community School is a free public charter school that engages
students in scholarship, stewardship and citizenship with the goal of educating
for sustainability. We provide a caring, smaller school environment that
challenges students to reach their highest potential through learning rooted in
the local community. Forest Grove Community School, like
all public charter schools, is a school of choice intended to offer a unique
educational program.   
What led to
the creation of this new school?
On top of the normal challenges of
growing into adults, we foresee that our children will face environmental and
cultural challenges that are unprecedented in scope and that will require
intelligent and flexible response. We believe that to meet these challenges our
children will need the ability to adapt to change, knowledge of environmental
systems, and an understanding of how to live sustainably.
As a result, we must prepare our
children by teaching them the skills they need to assess and respond to
information, to set and accomplish goals for themselves, and to develop strong
community bonds.
Scholarship,
Stewardship, Citizenship
Life lessons are learned by living.
So, we created a school in which the students and teachers take the classroom
into the world. Yes, they will study reading, writing and arithmetic (and much
more), but the lessons will be held in the school garden, the wetlands, or
downtown as well as in the classroom. These lessons will have impact, meaning,
and lasting value because they are hands-on, here at home, dealing with real
life issues.


      

From NoSpam03 at comcast.net  Sat Jan  9 09:58:22 2010
From: NoSpam03 at comcast.net (Steven)
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 2010 09:58:22 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] Corporate taxes and union wages
Message-ID: <003201ca9155$55ae3b90$010ab2b0$@net>

Conclusion

The evidence that US union wage premiums decline at higher rates of taxation
serves as a reminder that stakeholders of all kinds - workers, suppliers,
customers, executives, and certainly owners - share in the rents produced by
profitable firms. Efforts to tax firms more heavily create burdens that will
be distributed among stakeholders, possibly including many groups that
governments otherwise attempt to help.

 

 

http://www.voxeu.org/index.php?q=node/4363

 


From allnutt at verizon.net  Sat Jan  9 16:30:39 2010
From: allnutt at verizon.net (Katie Allnutt)
Date: Sat, 09 Jan 2010 16:30:39 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] Corporate taxes and union wages
In-Reply-To: <003201ca9155$55ae3b90$010ab2b0$@net>
References: <003201ca9155$55ae3b90$010ab2b0$@net>
Message-ID: <C16761D6-5D11-4866-930B-1BE14CF7894E@verizon.net>

I don't think we have to worry about union wage premiums here in Oregon.
We have one of the lowest corporate tax rates now and even if 66/67  
pass we will still be in the bottom five of the country for corporate  
rates. And there is not a large union presence here. Even on a  
national scale union membership has dropped dramatically since Reagan  
started union busting with the air traffic controllers.

I find it fairly remarkable that folks are just now starting to  
understand the idea that our tax policy has impacts on all stake  
holders. At least the author recognizes that not all corporate  
increases will be passed on to consumers. They even admit that CEO's  
may have to trim a big fat bonus to appease the angry consumers or  
they will be losing customers to their own detriment.  Aren't those  
CEO's one of the groups that government has for so long attempted to  
and successfully helped?

Thanks for helping to point that out.

Katie





On Jan 9, 2010, at 9:58 AM, Steven wrote:

> Conclusion
>
> The evidence that US union wage premiums decline at higher rates of  
> taxation
> serves as a reminder that stakeholders of all kinds - workers,  
> suppliers,
> customers, executives, and certainly owners - share in the rents  
> produced by
> profitable firms. Efforts to tax firms more heavily create burdens  
> that will
> be distributed among stakeholders, possibly including many groups that
> governments otherwise attempt to help.
>
>
>
>
>
> http://www.voxeu.org/index.php?q=node/4363
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet


From osubuckeye59 at yahoo.com  Sun Jan 10 20:47:36 2010
From: osubuckeye59 at yahoo.com (Allen Warren)
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 2010 20:47:36 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [Grovenet] Corporate taxes and union wages
In-Reply-To: <C16761D6-5D11-4866-930B-1BE14CF7894E@verizon.net>
References: <003201ca9155$55ae3b90$010ab2b0$@net>
	<C16761D6-5D11-4866-930B-1BE14CF7894E@verizon.net>
Message-ID: <443018.1889.qm@web112114.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>

Katie, their are at least 2 reasons why a corporation cannot pass on 100% of the increases to consumers, one being the deadweight loss and the other being the supply/demand curve where consumers demand quantity will not meet suppliers price.  Suppliers recognize this and therefore will have to move their demand price down the supply/demand curve to a point where consumers/purchasers will pay.  As for the CEO's and other company Executive Staff, some companies' leadership will choose to lower their own immediate & visible pay (i.e. salary) while other companies' execs. will choose to "trim the fat" in other areas and right off the losses.  In the end, the corp. execs. usually insure their longer-term nest eggs are safely tended.

 
Allen Warren



________________________________
From: Katie Allnutt <allnutt at verizon.net>
To: Forest Grove local interests list <grovenet at rdrop.com>
Sent: Sat, January 9, 2010 4:30:39 PM
Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Corporate taxes and union wages

I don't think we have to worry about union wage premiums here in Oregon.
We have one of the lowest corporate tax rates now and even if 66/67  
pass we will still be in the bottom five of the country for corporate  
rates. And there is not a large union presence here. Even on a  
national scale union membership has dropped dramatically since Reagan  
started union busting with the air traffic controllers.

I find it fairly remarkable that folks are just now starting to  
understand the idea that our tax policy has impacts on all stake  
holders. At least the author recognizes that not all corporate  
increases will be passed on to consumers. They even admit that CEO's  
may have to trim a big fat bonus to appease the angry consumers or  
they will be losing customers to their own detriment.  Aren't those  
CEO's one of the groups that government has for so long attempted to  
and successfully helped?

Thanks for helping to point that out.

Katie





On Jan 9, 2010, at 9:58 AM, Steven wrote:

> Conclusion
>
> The evidence that US union wage premiums decline at higher rates of  
> taxation
> serves as a reminder that stakeholders of all kinds - workers,  
> suppliers,
> customers, executives, and certainly owners - share in the rents  
> produced by
> profitable firms. Efforts to tax firms more heavily create burdens  
> that will
> be distributed among stakeholders, possibly including many groups that
> governments otherwise attempt to help.
>
>
>
>
>
> http://www.voxeu.org/index.php?q=node/4363
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet

_______________________________________________
GroveNet mailing list
GroveNet at rdrop.com
http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet



      

From isis23ra at yahoo.com  Mon Jan 11 11:14:00 2010
From: isis23ra at yahoo.com (Alana Graham)
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2010 11:14:00 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [Grovenet] World Affairs Discussion grp starts 1/16/10
In-Reply-To: <242996.57621.qm@web112410.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <245398.84255.qm@web55608.mail.re4.yahoo.com>

Join in the discussion! 
?
Saturday, January 16, 10 AM - 12 Noon, Great Decisions (www.fpa.org) ?begins its 2010 world policy discussion group.? The group meets at UUCCWC, 22785 NW Birch Dr. Orenco area (www.uuccwc.org) Hillsboro. 
?
For 9 weeks discuss topics that have worldwide (and local!) consequences with the help of the Foreign Publicity Association?materials.? With a 20 minute movie featuring a discussion among ?experts? and an article of only about 6 pages to read ahead of time from your Great Decisions book, you get to read, watch and come together to try and figure out how this world got so crazy, what?s happening now and try to come up with some solutions.
?
The dates and TOPICS are:
?
January 16:?? Intro to Great Decisions. ?Hand out books.?
January 23: Topics begin.? Special Envoys.? 
January 30:? Genocide in Kenya.? 
Feb. 6:? Global Crime. 
Feb 20:? China ? US Relations.? 
Feb 27:? Global Financial Crisis. 
March 6: Russia and Neighbors.? 
March 13:? Persian Gulf.? 
March 27:? Peace building and Conflict Resolution.
?
Workbooks are $15, cash or check (made out to me) upon receipt.? To register call: 503-359-9719.? If you don?t want to commit to all the sessions, come to one that sounds interesting, watch the movie and join in the discussion for that day.? We need to understand the world we live in ? Great Decisions is a great way!? 
?
Thanks
Alana Graham
503-359-9719





      

From isis23ra at yahoo.com  Mon Jan 11 11:27:13 2010
From: isis23ra at yahoo.com (Alana Graham)
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2010 11:27:13 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [Grovenet] Multiple sclerosis support group?
In-Reply-To: <443018.1889.qm@web112114.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <551207.52267.qm@web55603.mail.re4.yahoo.com>

I have a newly diagnosed young adult patient with Multiple Sclerosis.
?
Anyone out there know of local support groups for this?
?
Thanks so much!
?
Alana, MSC 503-357-2136 X 246



?


      

From rab at jurislex.com  Mon Jan 11 14:13:43 2010
From: rab at jurislex.com (Bob Browning)
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2010 14:13:43 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] Very interesting article - if you believe in evolution.
Message-ID: <4B4BA297.9090600@jurislex.com>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/attachments/20100111/550e4406/attachment.html 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: livescience_reg_hd_logo.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 1573 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : /pipermail/attachments/20100111/550e4406/attachment.gif 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 1x1_trans.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 43 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : /pipermail/attachments/20100111/550e4406/attachment-0001.gif 

From waltw at teleport.com  Mon Jan 11 21:22:56 2010
From: waltw at teleport.com (Walt Wentz)
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2010 21:22:56 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] Very interesting article - if you believe in
	evolution.
In-Reply-To: <4B4BA297.9090600@jurislex.com>
References: <4B4BA297.9090600@jurislex.com>
Message-ID: <1C84369F-AE01-40E9-A6DF-018F2C5FDC28@teleport.com>

Interesting-- it is obvious the bugs can evolve faster than us, but  
evolution has more effect on mysterious "modern" diseases than I had  
thought!

On Jan 11, 2010, at 2:13 PM, Bob Browning wrote:

> If you don't, you probably will get sick and die without ever  
> knowing what hit you!!
>
> bob "get that mask away from me" browning
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> <livescience_reg_hd_logo.gif>
>  Health
> Ongoing Evolution May Explain Mysterious Rise in Diseases
>
> By Jeanna Bryner, Managing Editor
>
> posted: 11 January 2010 02:18 pm ET
>
> While natural selection is best known for weeding out the weak, it  
> may also be partly responsible for the apparent rise of some  
> disorders, such as autism, autoimmune diseases and reproductive  
> cancers, according to researchers.
>
> Since evolutionary factors play a role in disease, the two fields  
> should have some crossover, say a group of scientists who have  
> studied various aspects of the link between evolution and medicine.
>
> "This work points out linkages within the plethora of new  
> information in human genetics and the implications for human  
> biology and public health, and also illustrates how one could teach  
> these perspectives in medical and premedical curricula," said  
> researcher Peter Ellison, an anthropologist at Harvard University.
>
> The results, they say, could save lives.
>
> "Evolutionary medicine got going in the '80s and early '90s, but it  
> has been energized in the last decade by the discovery that it  
> really makes a difference," researcher Stephen Stearns of Yale  
> University told LiveScience. "In the last 10 years we have found  
> out that taking an evolutionary perspective really helps to reduce  
> suffering and to reduce the risk of death."
>
> Evolution and disease
>
> Stearns and a long list of scientists presented their findings on  
> this evolution-medicine link at the Arthur M. Sackler Colloquium in  
> the spring of 2009. The results, announced publicly today, are now  
> published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of  
> Sciences.
>
> For example, previous work in evolutionary medicine has helped to  
> explain some reasons why disease is so prevalent and difficult to  
> prevent: Natural selection favors reproduction over health; biology  
> evolves more slowly than culture; and pathogens evolve more quickly  
> than humans.
>
> They describe these and other connections between evolution and  
> sickness along with possible explanations. Here are the highlights:
>
> Humans evolved alongside beneficial bacteria and parasitic worms,  
> and so our ancestors built up immunity to such bugs. But nowadays  
> with increased hygiene, we've eliminated the bacteria and worms.  
> The result: Since our immune systems aren?t used to these good  
> bugs, our bodies fight them as foreigners. That can result in  
> allergies, asthma and autoimmune diseases, such as Graves' disease  
> in which a person has an overactive thyroid.
> Humans have higher rates of cancer than other species. One reason:  
> We aren't adapted to the new risk factors of modern society,  
> including tobacco, alcohol, a high-fat diet and contraceptives,  
> researchers have found.
> Certain adaptations that once benefited us might be helping several  
> ailments to persist in spite of, or perhaps because of,  
> advancements in modern culture and medicine, according to researchers.
> With respect to evolution and culture, here's a case in point:  
> Harmful mutations are often recessive, and so both parents must  
> pass on the gene in order for the disease to show up in offspring.  
> And while natural selection has supported outbreeding (breeding  
> with people other than close relatives), culture hasn't always  
> followed suit. Across the globe, about 10 percent of spouses are  
> second cousins or closer, the researchers say, with the prevalence  
> ranging from 1 percent to 50 percent in different cultures.
>
> The inbreeding can cause recessive genes that should only have a  
> small effect on mortality to have a much larger impact.
>
> Autism and evolution
>
> Autism and schizophrenia also have ties with evolutionary science.  
> Essentially, they boil down to a battle of the sexes.
>
> Past studies beginning in the 1960s have built on one another to  
> suggest mom and dad are in evolutionary conflict over investment of  
> resources to their offspring. A mother knows all of her babies are  
> hers and so should give evenly to all. But fathers only want to  
> invest in their biological kids (not offspring from another male)  
> and so a father?s genes will pressure mom to skew investment toward  
> those offspring.
>
> Studies in genetically engineered mice have shown that when certain  
> paternal genes get expressed, the baby mice are 10 percent heavier  
> than normal.
>
> The results should translate to humans and carry into early  
> childhood, affecting children?s behaviors, the researchers suggest.
>
> For instance, when the paternal form of a gene on chromosome 15  
> gets expressed, and not the mother's, the resulting offspring will  
> be more demanding, sleep poorly, want to suckle frequently and have  
> a 40 percent to 80 percent chance of having autism as an adult.  
> (Humans normally have 46 chromosomes in each cell.) While  
> scientists think genes play a role in developing autism, the  
> complex causes of this disease are still unknown.
>
> Similar findings have shown psychoses such as schizophrenia can  
> develop when the maternal form of certain genes gets expressed.
>
> Educating physicians on evolution
>
> Stearns suggests evolutionary perspectives should be integrated  
> into curricula as early as undergraduate school for students  
> planning to attend medical school. The knowledge, Stearns said,  
> would complement traditional studies undertaken in medical school.
>
> We're trying to design ways to educate physicians who will have a  
> broader perspective and not think of the human body as a perfectly  
> designed machine," Ellison said. "Our biology is the result of many  
> evolutionary trade-offs, and understanding these histories and  
> conflicts can really help the physician understand why we get sick  
> and what we might do to stay healthy."
>
> The take-home message: "Evolution and medicine really do have  
> things to say to each other, and some of these insights actually  
> reduce suffering and save lives," Stearns said.
>
> DMCA/Copyright
> Copyright ? 2010 TechMediaNetwork.com All rights reserved.
>
> <1x1_trans.gif>
>
> <livescience_reg_hd_logo.gif><1x1_trans.gif>
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet


From jo.david at verizon.net  Tue Jan 12 00:00:46 2010
From: jo.david at verizon.net (David Morelli)
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2010 00:00:46 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] Very interesting article - if you believe in
	evolution.
In-Reply-To: <4B4BA297.9090600@jurislex.com>
References: <4B4BA297.9090600@jurislex.com>
Message-ID: <43318DC0-F68F-4BFE-83E4-0FB8730F4BCD@verizon.net>


On Jan 11, 2010, at 2:13 PM, Bob Browning wrote:

> ...  
> 
> With respect to evolution and culture, here's a case in point: Harmful mutations are often recessive, and so both parents must pass on the gene in order for the disease to show up in offspring. And while natural selection has supported outbreeding (breeding with people other than close relatives), culture hasn't always followed suit. Across the globe, about 10 percent of spouses are second cousins or closer, the researchers say, with the prevalence ranging from 1 percent to 50 percent in different cultures.
> 
> The inbreeding can cause recessive genes that should only have a small effect on mortality to have a much larger impact.
> 
> ...

It may be an alternate opinion, however, in the historic scheme of evolution, inbreeding has payed an important part.

This isn't necessary, of course, for organisms that have non-sexual reproduction.  

In the cells that undergo sexual reproduction, the DNA comes from each of the parents.  That doesn't work very well when they have different numbers of chromosomes.   So, when there is an evolutionary DNA change that changes the number of chromosomes, how can the new cell find a partner with the same number of chromosomes?  

Likely a sibling cell.  Or in multi-cellular organisms a sibling organism, since a parent organism that produces one off spring with a new, different number may also produce additional off spring with the same number of chromosomes.  And the new organism wouldn't need to look far for a suitable mate.  I would expect that this applies to the evolution of higher order organisms as well.  

I wonder if those social groups that practice inbreeding are really trying to evolve?  I wish them luck.

David


From NoSpam03 at comcast.net  Tue Jan 12 06:56:39 2010
From: NoSpam03 at comcast.net (Steven)
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2010 06:56:39 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] Very interesting article - if you believe
	in	evolution.
In-Reply-To: <43318DC0-F68F-4BFE-83E4-0FB8730F4BCD@verizon.net>
References: <4B4BA297.9090600@jurislex.com>
	<43318DC0-F68F-4BFE-83E4-0FB8730F4BCD@verizon.net>
Message-ID: <000301ca9397$726978a0$573c69e0$@net>

If the Hawaiian King had two children, Their child was considered a god.

-----Original Message-----
From: grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com [mailto:grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com] On
Behalf Of David Morelli
Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2010 12:01 AM
To: Forest Grove local interests list

It may be an alternate opinion, however, in the historic scheme of
evolution, inbreeding has payed an important part.

This isn't necessary, of course, for organisms that have non-sexual
reproduction.  

In the cells that undergo sexual reproduction, the DNA comes from each of
the parents.  That doesn't work very well when they have different numbers
of chromosomes.   So, when there is an evolutionary DNA change that changes
the number of chromosomes, how can the new cell find a partner with the same
number of chromosomes?  

Likely a sibling cell.  Or in multi-cellular organisms a sibling organism,
since a parent organism that produces one off spring with a new, different
number may also produce additional off spring with the same number of
chromosomes.  And the new organism wouldn't need to look far for a suitable
mate.  I would expect that this applies to the evolution of higher order
organisms as well.  

I wonder if those social groups that practice inbreeding are really trying
to evolve?  I wish them luck.

David

_______________________________________________
GroveNet mailing list
GroveNet at rdrop.com
http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet


From allnutt at verizon.net  Tue Jan 12 07:33:49 2010
From: allnutt at verizon.net (Katie Allnutt)
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2010 07:33:49 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] Very interesting article - if you
	believe	in	evolution.
In-Reply-To: <000301ca9397$726978a0$573c69e0$@net>
References: <4B4BA297.9090600@jurislex.com>
	<43318DC0-F68F-4BFE-83E4-0FB8730F4BCD@verizon.net>
	<000301ca9397$726978a0$573c69e0$@net>
Message-ID: <14C1851F-BBE2-4ACE-91A2-67197E479272@verizon.net>

I don't think our vocabulary adequately expresses the Hawaiian  
concept, but I don't think that such children were considered a god  
in the way that we think of god(s).
Spiritual power was passed through to descendants and in offspring  
outside of royalty the spiritual power was diluted. Marriage between  
a kings two children would help maintain spiritual power instead of  
diffusing it.  You needed to pass on to your children enough 'mana'  
to keep it, since such power and authority came at least partially  
from ancestors.

I'm not sure a person outside of the culture can truly grasp what  
quality is passed on through royalty and I don't think I have  
adequately described it either, but just calling such a child a god  
is an oversimplification.

Katie


On Jan 12, 2010, at 6:56 AM, Steven wrote:

> If the Hawaiian King had two children, Their child was considered a  
> god.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com [mailto:grovenet- 
> bounces at rdrop.com] On
> Behalf Of David Morelli
> Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2010 12:01 AM
> To: Forest Grove local interests list
>
> It may be an alternate opinion, however, in the historic scheme of
> evolution, inbreeding has payed an important part.
>
> This isn't necessary, of course, for organisms that have non-sexual
> reproduction.
>
> In the cells that undergo sexual reproduction, the DNA comes from  
> each of
> the parents.  That doesn't work very well when they have different  
> numbers
> of chromosomes.   So, when there is an evolutionary DNA change that  
> changes
> the number of chromosomes, how can the new cell find a partner with  
> the same
> number of chromosomes?
>
> Likely a sibling cell.  Or in multi-cellular organisms a sibling  
> organism,
> since a parent organism that produces one off spring with a new,  
> different
> number may also produce additional off spring with the same number of
> chromosomes.  And the new organism wouldn't need to look far for a  
> suitable
> mate.  I would expect that this applies to the evolution of higher  
> order
> organisms as well.
>
> I wonder if those social groups that practice inbreeding are really  
> trying
> to evolve?  I wish them luck.
>
> David
>
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet


From khourym at verizon.net  Tue Jan 12 08:22:42 2010
From: khourym at verizon.net (Martha Khoury)
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2010 08:22:42 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] Fwd: CENSUS 2010: Coming Soon!
References: <000601ca9346$e19591b0$a4c0b510$@com>
Message-ID: <D8CD6A3D-C15F-4897-8E47-DA300762CE90@verizon.net>

Thought this might be of interest. --MK



> Colleagues:  Preparation for the 2010 Census is well underway  
> nationwide.  April 1, 2010 is "Census Day" however there is lots of  
> preparation and marketing that needs to be done between now and then  
> to ensure that EVERYONE IS COUNTED.  This is the first in a series  
> of messages that we will send to remind you to do your part to  
> ensure your household, and your community, is counted.  Check out www.census.gov 
>  for schedules, timelines, partnership and more.  Remember, the 2010  
> Census form will be the shortest in history with just 10 questions.
>
> ***************************************
>
> The Better Business Bureau (BBB) offers advice to people regarding  
> the Census.
>
> The BBB recommends that individuals be cooperative, but cautious, so  
> as not to become a victim of fraud or identity theft. The first  
> phase of the 2010 U.S. Census is under way as workers have begun  
> verifying the addresses of households across the county. Eventually,  
> more than 140,000 U.S. Census workers will count every person in the  
> United States and will gather information about every person living  
> at each address including name, age, gender, race, and other  
> relevant data.
>
> The BBB offers the following advice:
>
> ---If a U.S. Census worker knocks on your door, they will have a  
> badge, a handheld device, a Census Bureau canvas bag, and a  
> confidentiality notice. Ask to see their identification and their  
> badge before answering their questions. However, you should never  
> invite anyone you don't know into your home.
>
> ---Census workers are currently only knocking on doors to verify  
> address information. Do not give your Social Security number, credit  
> card or banking information to anyone, even if they claim they need  
> it for the U.S. Census.
>
> ---The Census Bureau will not ask for Social Security, bank account  
> or credit card numbers, nor will employees solicit donations. Anyone  
> asking for that information is NOT with the Census Bureau.
>
> ---AND REMEMBER, THE CENSUS BUREAU HAS DECIDED NOT TO WORK WITH  
> ACORN ON GATHERING THIS INFORMATION. No Acorn worker should approach  
> you saying he/she is with the Census Bureau.
>
> ---Eventually, Census workers may contact you by telephone, mail, or  
> in person at home.  However, the Census Bureau will NOT contact you  
> by Email, so be on the lookout for Email scams impersonating the  
> Census. Never click on a link or open any attachments in an Email  
> that are supposedly from the U.S. Census Bureau.
>
> For more advice on avoiding identity theft and fraud, visit  
> www.bbb.org
>
> Visit www.census.gov for frequently asked questions and other details.
>
> LeAnn Jenkins, Executive Director
> Federal Executive Board
> 215 Dean A. McGee, Ste 153
> Oklahoma City, OK  73102
> (405) 231-4167
> www.oklahoma.feb.gov
> Communication-Collaboration-Commitment
>


From waltw at teleport.com  Tue Jan 12 08:53:58 2010
From: waltw at teleport.com (Walt Wentz)
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2010 08:53:58 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] Very interesting article - if you believe
	in	evolution.
In-Reply-To: <000301ca9397$726978a0$573c69e0$@net>
References: <4B4BA297.9090600@jurislex.com>
	<43318DC0-F68F-4BFE-83E4-0FB8730F4BCD@verizon.net>
	<000301ca9397$726978a0$573c69e0$@net>
Message-ID: <D6C2C2EA-6494-466F-8F9C-45D998401530@teleport.com>

The Samoan royal family, a product of inbreeding,  were supposedly   
larger and more muscular than the rest of the local population. I've  
read of one Queen who could break a man's back when angry. It was  
wisest not to annoy Her Majesty. The ancient Egyptians supposedly  
passed the royal line through siblings, and look where that got  
them-- packed away in dusty glass cases, while crowds of tourists  
gawk at them. The Sumo wrestlers of Japan marry into other Sumo  
families, and although they tend to die relatively young they do  
retain their superior height and mass, and consequently enjoyed a  
winning monopoly on the sport for centuries-- until an American  
interloper won the championship a few years ago. Perhaps a diet of  
Twinkies and fatty beef trumps genetics in at least this one instance.

On Jan 12, 2010, at 6:56 AM, Steven wrote:

> If the Hawaiian King had two children, Their child was considered a  
> god.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com [mailto:grovenet- 
> bounces at rdrop.com] On
> Behalf Of David Morelli
> Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2010 12:01 AM
> To: Forest Grove local interests list
>
> It may be an alternate opinion, however, in the historic scheme of
> evolution, inbreeding has payed an important part.
>
> This isn't necessary, of course, for organisms that have non-sexual
> reproduction.
>
> In the cells that undergo sexual reproduction, the DNA comes from  
> each of
> the parents.  That doesn't work very well when they have different  
> numbers
> of chromosomes.   So, when there is an evolutionary DNA change that  
> changes
> the number of chromosomes, how can the new cell find a partner with  
> the same
> number of chromosomes?
>
> Likely a sibling cell.  Or in multi-cellular organisms a sibling  
> organism,
> since a parent organism that produces one off spring with a new,  
> different
> number may also produce additional off spring with the same number of
> chromosomes.  And the new organism wouldn't need to look far for a  
> suitable
> mate.  I would expect that this applies to the evolution of higher  
> order
> organisms as well.
>
> I wonder if those social groups that practice inbreeding are really  
> trying
> to evolve?  I wish them luck.
>
> David
>
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet


From waltw at teleport.com  Tue Jan 12 08:34:22 2010
From: waltw at teleport.com (Walt Wentz)
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2010 08:34:22 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] Very interesting article - if you believe in
	evolution.
In-Reply-To: <43318DC0-F68F-4BFE-83E4-0FB8730F4BCD@verizon.net>
References: <4B4BA297.9090600@jurislex.com>
	<43318DC0-F68F-4BFE-83E4-0FB8730F4BCD@verizon.net>
Message-ID: <7DA3CB40-00CE-4395-9799-D017ABD09449@teleport.com>

An article in CNN last week related to one tribe among the Gaza  
Palestinians who practiced cousin marriage. An remarkable percentage  
of male offspring suffered from an ordinarily very rare genetic  
disease resulting in malformation of the sexual organs, so that they  
were raised as girls until the onset of puberty revealed the  
problem.  Left uncorrected, the condition became lethal as the  
individual matured. So this particular genetic mutation, at least,  
could not be called a heritable improvement.
On Jan 12, 2010, at 12:00 AM, David Morelli wrote:

>
> On Jan 11, 2010, at 2:13 PM, Bob Browning wrote:
>
>> ...
>>
>> With respect to evolution and culture, here's a case in point:  
>> Harmful mutations are often recessive, and so both parents must  
>> pass on the gene in order for the disease to show up in offspring.  
>> And while natural selection has supported outbreeding (breeding  
>> with people other than close relatives), culture hasn't always  
>> followed suit. Across the globe, about 10 percent of spouses are  
>> second cousins or closer, the researchers say, with the prevalence  
>> ranging from 1 percent to 50 percent in different cultures.
>>
>> The inbreeding can cause recessive genes that should only have a  
>> small effect on mortality to have a much larger impact.
>>
>> ...
>
> It may be an alternate opinion, however, in the historic scheme of  
> evolution, inbreeding has payed an important part.
>
> This isn't necessary, of course, for organisms that have non-sexual  
> reproduction.
>
> In the cells that undergo sexual reproduction, the DNA comes from  
> each of the parents.  That doesn't work very well when they have  
> different numbers of chromosomes.   So, when there is an  
> evolutionary DNA change that changes the number of chromosomes, how  
> can the new cell find a partner with the same number of chromosomes?
>
> Likely a sibling cell.  Or in multi-cellular organisms a sibling  
> organism, since a parent organism that produces one off spring with  
> a new, different number may also produce additional off spring with  
> the same number of chromosomes.  And the new organism wouldn't need  
> to look far for a suitable mate.  I would expect that this applies  
> to the evolution of higher order organisms as well.
>
> I wonder if those social groups that practice inbreeding are really  
> trying to evolve?  I wish them luck.
>
> David
>
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet


From NoSpam03 at comcast.net  Tue Jan 12 09:53:54 2010
From: NoSpam03 at comcast.net (Steven)
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2010 09:53:54 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] Very interesting article - if you
	believe	in	evolution.
In-Reply-To: <D6C2C2EA-6494-466F-8F9C-45D998401530@teleport.com>
References: <4B4BA297.9090600@jurislex.com>	<43318DC0-F68F-4BFE-83E4-0FB8730F4BCD@verizon.net>	<000301ca9397$726978a0$573c69e0$@net>
	<D6C2C2EA-6494-466F-8F9C-45D998401530@teleport.com>
Message-ID: <000f01ca93b0$35a78a60$a0f69f20$@net>

Heck, we breed all sorts of animals so they evolve in to what we want.

-----Original Message-----
From: grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com [mailto:grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com] On
Behalf Of Walt Wentz
Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2010 8:54 AM
To: Forest Grove local interests list
Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Very interesting article - if you believe in
evolution.

The Samoan royal family, a product of inbreeding,  were supposedly   
larger and more muscular than the rest of the local population. I've  
read of one Queen who could break a man's back when angry. It was  
wisest not to annoy Her Majesty. The ancient Egyptians supposedly  
passed the royal line through siblings, and look where that got  
them-- packed away in dusty glass cases, while crowds of tourists  
gawk at them. The Sumo wrestlers of Japan marry into other Sumo  
families, and although they tend to die relatively young they do  
retain their superior height and mass, and consequently enjoyed a  
winning monopoly on the sport for centuries-- until an American  
interloper won the championship a few years ago. Perhaps a diet of  
Twinkies and fatty beef trumps genetics in at least this one instance.

On Jan 12, 2010, at 6:56 AM, Steven wrote:

> If the Hawaiian King had two children, Their child was considered a  
> god.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com [mailto:grovenet- 
> bounces at rdrop.com] On
> Behalf Of David Morelli
> Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2010 12:01 AM
> To: Forest Grove local interests list
>
> It may be an alternate opinion, however, in the historic scheme of
> evolution, inbreeding has payed an important part.
>
> This isn't necessary, of course, for organisms that have non-sexual
> reproduction.
>
> In the cells that undergo sexual reproduction, the DNA comes from  
> each of
> the parents.  That doesn't work very well when they have different  
> numbers
> of chromosomes.   So, when there is an evolutionary DNA change that  
> changes
> the number of chromosomes, how can the new cell find a partner with  
> the same
> number of chromosomes?
>
> Likely a sibling cell.  Or in multi-cellular organisms a sibling  
> organism,
> since a parent organism that produces one off spring with a new,  
> different
> number may also produce additional off spring with the same number of
> chromosomes.  And the new organism wouldn't need to look far for a  
> suitable
> mate.  I would expect that this applies to the evolution of higher  
> order
> organisms as well.
>
> I wonder if those social groups that practice inbreeding are really  
> trying
> to evolve?  I wish them luck.
>
> David
>
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet

_______________________________________________
GroveNet mailing list
GroveNet at rdrop.com
http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet


From waltw at teleport.com  Tue Jan 12 10:28:19 2010
From: waltw at teleport.com (Walt Wentz)
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2010 10:28:19 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] Very interesting article - if you
	believe	in	evolution.
In-Reply-To: <000f01ca93b0$35a78a60$a0f69f20$@net>
References: <4B4BA297.9090600@jurislex.com>	<43318DC0-F68F-4BFE-83E4-0FB8730F4BCD@verizon.net>	<000301ca9397$726978a0$573c69e0$@net>
	<D6C2C2EA-6494-466F-8F9C-45D998401530@teleport.com>
	<000f01ca93b0$35a78a60$a0f69f20$@net>
Message-ID: <598E92AD-053F-4692-9BFD-B13273178830@teleport.com>

As witness the chihuahua dog-- ugh! Actually those were originally  
bred as a meat animal. A pity they didn't remain so.

However, I don't know that man has ever really created a new species  
through selective breeding. All domestic breeds (except sterile  
hybrids such as the mule, and those physically incapable such as the  
turkey) can crossbreed successfully with their wild progenitors.

On Jan 12, 2010, at 9:53 AM, Steven wrote:

> Heck, we breed all sorts of animals so they evolve in to what we want.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com [mailto:grovenet- 
> bounces at rdrop.com] On
> Behalf Of Walt Wentz
> Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2010 8:54 AM
> To: Forest Grove local interests list
> Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Very interesting article - if you believe in
> evolution.
>
> The Samoan royal family, a product of inbreeding,  were supposedly
> larger and more muscular than the rest of the local population. I've
> read of one Queen who could break a man's back when angry. It was
> wisest not to annoy Her Majesty. The ancient Egyptians supposedly
> passed the royal line through siblings, and look where that got
> them-- packed away in dusty glass cases, while crowds of tourists
> gawk at them. The Sumo wrestlers of Japan marry into other Sumo
> families, and although they tend to die relatively young they do
> retain their superior height and mass, and consequently enjoyed a
> winning monopoly on the sport for centuries-- until an American
> interloper won the championship a few years ago. Perhaps a diet of
> Twinkies and fatty beef trumps genetics in at least this one instance.
>
> On Jan 12, 2010, at 6:56 AM, Steven wrote:
>
>> If the Hawaiian King had two children, Their child was considered a
>> god.
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com [mailto:grovenet-
>> bounces at rdrop.com] On
>> Behalf Of David Morelli
>> Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2010 12:01 AM
>> To: Forest Grove local interests list
>>
>> It may be an alternate opinion, however, in the historic scheme of
>> evolution, inbreeding has payed an important part.
>>
>> This isn't necessary, of course, for organisms that have non-sexual
>> reproduction.
>>
>> In the cells that undergo sexual reproduction, the DNA comes from
>> each of
>> the parents.  That doesn't work very well when they have different
>> numbers
>> of chromosomes.   So, when there is an evolutionary DNA change that
>> changes
>> the number of chromosomes, how can the new cell find a partner with
>> the same
>> number of chromosomes?
>>
>> Likely a sibling cell.  Or in multi-cellular organisms a sibling
>> organism,
>> since a parent organism that produces one off spring with a new,
>> different
>> number may also produce additional off spring with the same number of
>> chromosomes.  And the new organism wouldn't need to look far for a
>> suitable
>> mate.  I would expect that this applies to the evolution of higher
>> order
>> organisms as well.
>>
>> I wonder if those social groups that practice inbreeding are really
>> trying
>> to evolve?  I wish them luck.
>>
>> David
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> GroveNet mailing list
>> GroveNet at rdrop.com
>> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> GroveNet mailing list
>> GroveNet at rdrop.com
>> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet


From rab at jurislex.com  Tue Jan 12 11:06:06 2010
From: rab at jurislex.com (Bob Browning)
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2010 11:06:06 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] Flattery Will Get You Far
Message-ID: <4B4CC81E.1090707@jurislex.com>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/attachments/20100112/db36ac42/attachment-0001.html 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: logo.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 3861 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : /pipermail/attachments/20100112/db36ac42/attachment-0001.gif 

From allnutt at verizon.net  Tue Jan 12 10:55:28 2010
From: allnutt at verizon.net (Katie Allnutt)
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2010 10:55:28 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] Fwd: CENSUS 2010: Coming Soon!
In-Reply-To: <D8CD6A3D-C15F-4897-8E47-DA300762CE90@verizon.net>
References: <000601ca9346$e19591b0$a4c0b510$@com>
	<D8CD6A3D-C15F-4897-8E47-DA300762CE90@verizon.net>
Message-ID: <74B051D4-DB63-4E20-AEEA-41CFA85E95E3@verizon.net>

Thanks Martha,
   I think this is especially good to pass along to our parents who  
might be more trusting when they shouldn't be, especially when it  
comes to email.

Katie

On Jan 12, 2010, at 8:22 AM, Martha Khoury wrote:

> Thought this might be of interest. --MK
>
>
>
>> Colleagues:  Preparation for the 2010 Census is well underway
>> nationwide.  April 1, 2010 is "Census Day" however there is lots of
>> preparation and marketing that needs to be done between now and then
>> to ensure that EVERYONE IS COUNTED.  This is the first in a series
>> of messages that we will send to remind you to do your part to
>> ensure your household, and your community, is counted.  Check out  
>> www.census.gov
>>  for schedules, timelines, partnership and more.  Remember, the 2010
>> Census form will be the shortest in history with just 10 questions.
>>
>> ***************************************
>>
>> The Better Business Bureau (BBB) offers advice to people regarding
>> the Census.
>>
>> The BBB recommends that individuals be cooperative, but cautious, so
>> as not to become a victim of fraud or identity theft. The first
>> phase of the 2010 U.S. Census is under way as workers have begun
>> verifying the addresses of households across the county. Eventually,
>> more than 140,000 U.S. Census workers will count every person in the
>> United States and will gather information about every person living
>> at each address including name, age, gender, race, and other
>> relevant data.
>>
>> The BBB offers the following advice:
>>
>> ---If a U.S. Census worker knocks on your door, they will have a
>> badge, a handheld device, a Census Bureau canvas bag, and a
>> confidentiality notice. Ask to see their identification and their
>> badge before answering their questions. However, you should never
>> invite anyone you don't know into your home.
>>
>> ---Census workers are currently only knocking on doors to verify
>> address information. Do not give your Social Security number, credit
>> card or banking information to anyone, even if they claim they need
>> it for the U.S. Census.
>>
>> ---The Census Bureau will not ask for Social Security, bank account
>> or credit card numbers, nor will employees solicit donations. Anyone
>> asking for that information is NOT with the Census Bureau.
>>
>> ---AND REMEMBER, THE CENSUS BUREAU HAS DECIDED NOT TO WORK WITH
>> ACORN ON GATHERING THIS INFORMATION. No Acorn worker should approach
>> you saying he/she is with the Census Bureau.
>>
>> ---Eventually, Census workers may contact you by telephone, mail, or
>> in person at home.  However, the Census Bureau will NOT contact you
>> by Email, so be on the lookout for Email scams impersonating the
>> Census. Never click on a link or open any attachments in an Email
>> that are supposedly from the U.S. Census Bureau.
>>
>> For more advice on avoiding identity theft and fraud, visit
>> www.bbb.org
>>
>> Visit www.census.gov for frequently asked questions and other  
>> details.
>>
>> LeAnn Jenkins, Executive Director
>> Federal Executive Board
>> 215 Dean A. McGee, Ste 153
>> Oklahoma City, OK  73102
>> (405) 231-4167
>> www.oklahoma.feb.gov
>> Communication-Collaboration-Commitment
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet


From kevin97116 at yahoo.com  Tue Jan 12 11:23:29 2010
From: kevin97116 at yahoo.com (Kevin)
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2010 11:23:29 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [Grovenet] heads up,  URD alert!
In-Reply-To: <mailman.256.1263323329.1067.grovenet@rdrop.com>
References: <mailman.256.1263323329.1067.grovenet@rdrop.com>
Message-ID: <908714.41062.qm@web50303.mail.re2.yahoo.com>

It has come to my attention that the the City of Forest Grove is in the preliminary steps of determining the feasibility of forming an Urban Renewal District.  Anybody with ties to an "underlying taxing district" (ie fire, schools, parks, etc) should be very concerned about this.

It's a complicated issue, but what it amounts to is if a URD is established you will be subsidizing services for any new growth in the URD.  You'll get to pay your fair share and theirs too!

If you need details or an explanation on how this all happens send me an email and I'll do my best to explain it.

Kevin Van Dyke


      

From allnutt at verizon.net  Tue Jan 12 13:36:44 2010
From: allnutt at verizon.net (Katie Allnutt)
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2010 13:36:44 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] Flattery Will Get You Far
In-Reply-To: <4B4CC81E.1090707@jurislex.com>
References: <4B4CC81E.1090707@jurislex.com>
Message-ID: <F660D9DC-5C29-4BEC-A296-25EF093C446A@verizon.net>

As I read the last paragraph about bringing donuts to your boss the  
words were ringing in my mind:
"Of course the $1 million that the insurance industry gave to my  
campaign didn't impact my vote at all."
We probably need campaign finance reform more than we think we do.


Katie


On Jan 12, 2010, at 11:06 AM, Bob Browning wrote:

> Too bad I didn't learn this as a child. Some how I always thought  
> that the truth was enough!!
>
> bob "you look like hell today" browning
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> <logo.gif>
> Mind Matters -  January 12, 2010
>
> Flattery Will Get You Far
>
> Even obviously manipulative compliments are remarkably effective
>
> By Piercarlo Valdesolo
>
> Here at Scientific American we understand the wisdom of our  
> readership. Your intellect sets you apart from the rest of the  
> population, and we are gracious to have you as visitors to this  
> website. As someone of exceptional judgment, we know you will be  
> interested in subscribing to our exclusive online material,  
> appropriate for only the most discerning intellectuals, and  
> available to you for only $9.99/month.
> If appeals like this make you roll your eyes, you?re not alone.  
> Most people tend to not appreciate flattery accompanied by obvious  
> ulterior motives, and consider themselves fairly adept at  
> determining whose compliments are sincere and whose are BS. Great  
> tie, boss! Professor, your article redefined my entire  
> understanding of human nature. I know we just met, gorgeous, but  
> I?ve already fallen in love.
>
> But what if this stuff actually works ? And not just on the suckers  
> who can?t tell the difference between the sincere and the  
> insincere, but on those who recognize these techniques for what  
> they are. Such was the hypothesis of a new study, conducted by  
> Elaine Chan and Jaideep Sengupta at the Hong Kong University of  
> Science and Technology and published in the Journal of Marketing  
> Research.
>
> Participants in the study were asked to evaluate the merits of a  
> new department store opening in the area based on one of the  
> store?s advertisements. In addition to describing the new store?s  
> offerings, the ad lauded readers for their impeccable sense of  
> style and eye for high fashion. While participants overwhelmingly  
> categorized the pamphlet as flattery with the ulterior motive of  
> pushing blouses, the experimenters were more interested in how  
> their attitudes would be influenced at the implicit level. Might  
> participants develop a non-conscious positive association with the  
> department store, even after rejecting the ad as meaningless  
> puffery? And if so, would this implicit reaction be a better  
> predictor of decisions and behavior down the road? Will even the  
> people who are wise to advertising tricks end up at the register,  
> credit card in hand?
>
> It turns out that implicit attitudes towards the store were more  
> positive than explicit attitudes. They were also better predictors  
> of reported likelihood of making future purchases, as well as  
> likelihood of joining the store?s club. So it seems that while  
> participants quickly dismissed these ads at the explicit level, the  
> flattery was exerting an important effect outside their awareness.
>
> The authors speculated that the susceptibility to flattery stemmed  
> from a simple desire to feel good about themselves. Indeed, we hold  
> ourselves in high esteem, a phenomenon known as the above-average  
> effect. Ask a group of people how good they are at driving, chances  
> are they will all consider themselves to be above the mean. Of  
> course, this is statistically unlikely. So, it is not surprising  
> that we are particularly receptive to messages consistent with such  
> a rosy-eyed view of our abilities and characteristics. We may  
> dismiss it offhand when a subordinate compliments our new haircut,  
> but deep down we?re thinking, ?You know what?  I do look good?.
>
> In order to test whether the influence of insincere flattery on  
> attitudes is driven by the motivation to self-enhance, the  
> experimenters created two conditions ? one in which participants  
> were asked to write about an aspect of their personality that they  
> would like to change and one in which they wrote about a valued  
> trait. As predicted, engaging in self-criticism amplified the  
> effect of flattery on implicit attitudes while self-affirmation  
> tempered this effect. In other words, those of us who could use a  
> little pick-me up to begin with are particularly vulnerable to the  
> message behind a smooth sales pitch.
>
> So, awareness of when we?re being put on may not be enough to curb  
> the effectiveness of insincerity. Surely most people recognize that  
> after drinking Bud Light a gang of gorgeous men and women will not  
> be bursting into their apartment, eager to toast their new best  
> friend. Or that they are one prescription drug away from not only  
> lowering cholesterol but happily prancing through meadows with  
> family and friends. What this research suggests, however, is that  
> the implicit positivity we experience as a result of viewing these  
> images could play an important role in what we reach for when  
> standing in the liquor store staring at a freezer full of cheap  
> beer. You may not know why, but you?d feel pretty good about a Bud  
> right now. And while you feel certain to you that your preference  
> is not due to those silly ads (just like it might seem obvious to a  
> manager that they didn?t promote a candidate because he brings her  
> donuts every morning), perhaps it is the certainty with which we  
> dismiss these kinds of manipulative and deceptive appeals that  
> allows them to hold such sway.
>
> Are you a scientist? Have you recently read a peer-reviewed paper  
> that you want to write about? Then contact Mind Matters co-editor  
> Gareth Cook, a Pulitzer prize-winning journalist at the Boston  
> Globe, where he edits the Sunday Ideas section. He can be reached  
> at garethideas at gmail.com
>
>   <logo.gif>
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet


From rab at jurislex.com  Tue Jan 12 11:36:35 2010
From: rab at jurislex.com (Bob Browning)
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2010 11:36:35 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] Best in show: Scientists pursue selected gene mutations
 bred into dogs
Message-ID: <4B4CCF43.7010507@jurislex.com>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/attachments/20100112/f6f26d55/attachment.html 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: logo.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 3861 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : /pipermail/attachments/20100112/f6f26d55/attachment.gif 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: dog-breeds.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 22725 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : /pipermail/attachments/20100112/f6f26d55/attachment.jpg 

From jo.david at verizon.net  Tue Jan 12 18:52:40 2010
From: jo.david at verizon.net (David Morelli)
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2010 18:52:40 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] heads up,  URD alert!
In-Reply-To: <908714.41062.qm@web50303.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
References: <mailman.256.1263323329.1067.grovenet@rdrop.com>
	<908714.41062.qm@web50303.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <6AD781BC-43F8-420A-A349-5FDFD5069E55@verizon.net>

What developer/speculator is going to see the benefit?

If it is affordable housing, who will be displaced?

Inquiring minds want to know.
David

On Jan 12, 2010, at 11:23 AM, Kevin wrote:

> It has come to my attention that the the City of Forest Grove is in the preliminary steps of determining the feasibility of forming an Urban Renewal District.  Anybody with ties to an "underlying taxing district" (ie fire, schools, parks, etc) should be very concerned about this.
> 
> It's a complicated issue, but what it amounts to is if a URD is established you will be subsidizing services for any new growth in the URD.  You'll get to pay your fair share and theirs too!
> 
> If you need details or an explanation on how this all happens send me an email and I'll do my best to explain it.
> 
> Kevin Van Dyke
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet



From NoSpam03 at comcast.net  Tue Jan 12 19:18:47 2010
From: NoSpam03 at comcast.net (Steven)
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2010 19:18:47 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] heads up,  URD alert!
In-Reply-To: <6AD781BC-43F8-420A-A349-5FDFD5069E55@verizon.net>
References: <mailman.256.1263323329.1067.grovenet@rdrop.com>	<908714.41062.qm@web50303.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
	<6AD781BC-43F8-420A-A349-5FDFD5069E55@verizon.net>
Message-ID: <002b01ca93ff$319e1e30$94da5a90$@net>

The goal is to tax. I never understand why tax existing businesses to
support other businesses. If it is a good investment, they need no
incentive. The city should work on making it a good investment.

-----Original Message-----
From: grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com [mailto:grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com] On
Behalf Of David Morelli
Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2010 6:53 PM
To: Kevin; Forest Grove local interests list
Subject: Re: [Grovenet] heads up, URD alert!

What developer/speculator is going to see the benefit?

If it is affordable housing, who will be displaced?

Inquiring minds want to know.
David

On Jan 12, 2010, at 11:23 AM, Kevin wrote:

> It has come to my attention that the the City of Forest Grove is in the
preliminary steps of determining the feasibility of forming an Urban Renewal
District.  Anybody with ties to an "underlying taxing district" (ie fire,
schools, parks, etc) should be very concerned about this.
> 
> It's a complicated issue, but what it amounts to is if a URD is
established you will be subsidizing services for any new growth in the URD.
You'll get to pay your fair share and theirs too!
> 
> If you need details or an explanation on how this all happens send me an
email and I'll do my best to explain it.
> 
> Kevin Van Dyke
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet


_______________________________________________
GroveNet mailing list
GroveNet at rdrop.com
http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet


From a_tom_51 at juno.com  Wed Jan 13 08:25:27 2010
From: a_tom_51 at juno.com (a_tom_51 at juno.com)
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2010 16:25:27 GMT
Subject: [Grovenet] Very interesting article - if you believe
	in	evolution.
Message-ID: <20100113.082527.22118.0@webmail14.vgs.untd.com>

Walt,
Kind of interesting point is I think the American guy who was the sumo champ in Japan was Samoan.
Tom Alexander
 

 The Samoan royal family, a product of inbreeding,  were supposedly   
larger and more muscular than the rest of the local population. I've  
read of one Queen who could break a man's back when angry. It was  
wisest not to annoy Her Majesty. The ancient Egyptians supposedly  
passed the royal line through siblings, and look where that got  
them-- packed away in dusty glass cases, while crowds of tourists  
gawk at them. The Sumo wrestlers of Japan marry into other Sumo  
families, and although they tend to die relatively young they do  
retain their superior height and mass, and consequently enjoyed a  
winning monopoly on the sport for centuries-- until an American  
interloper won the championship a few years ago. Perhaps a diet of  
Twinkies and fatty beef trumps genetics in at least this one instance.

On Jan 12, 2010, at 6:56 AM, Steven wrote:

> If the Hawaiian King had two children, Their child was considered a  
> god.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com [mailto:grovenet- 
> bounces at rdrop.com] On
> Behalf Of David Morelli
> Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2010 12:01 AM
> To: Forest Grove local interests list
>
> It may be an alternate opinion, however, in the historic scheme of
> evolution, inbreeding has payed an important part.
>
> This isn't necessary, of course, for organisms that have non-sexual
> reproduction.
>
> In the cells that undergo sexual reproduction, the DNA comes from  
> each of
> the parents.  That doesn't work very well when they have different  
> numbers
> of chromosomes.   So, when there is an evolutionary DNA change that  
> changes
> the number of chromosomes, how can the new cell find a partner with  
> the same
> number of chromosomes?
>
> Likely a sibling cell.  Or in multi-cellular organisms a sibling  
> organism,
> since a parent organism that produces one off spring with a new,  
> different
> number may also produce additional off spring with the same number of
> chromosomes.  And the new organism wouldn't need to look far for a  
> suitable
> mate.  I would expect that this applies to the evolution of higher  
> order
> organisms as well.
>
> I wonder if those social groups that practice inbreeding are really  
> trying
> to evolve?  I wish them luck.
>
> David
>
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet

_______________________________________________
GroveNet mailing list
GroveNet at rdrop.com
http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet

____________________________________________________________
Diet Help
Cheap Diet Help Tips. Click here.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/c?cp=4HCTO2pnXBTAv1t8NpJuKQAAJ1CORKrrSABr_kse746cCp3FAAYAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADNAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAYQAAAAAA=

From waltw at teleport.com  Wed Jan 13 09:24:22 2010
From: waltw at teleport.com (Walt Wentz)
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2010 09:24:22 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] Very interesting article - if you believe
	in	evolution.
In-Reply-To: <20100113.082527.22118.0@webmail14.vgs.untd.com>
References: <20100113.082527.22118.0@webmail14.vgs.untd.com>
Message-ID: <5D71476A-B765-417A-873C-CC3A486093BB@teleport.com>

Tom:
I didn't know that!  All I knew was that he was an American. Samoans  
on average are supposed to be fairly massive. Seems at least a  
possibility he might also have some royal ancestry, wot?

On Jan 13, 2010, at 4:25 PM, a_tom_51 at juno.com wrote:

> Walt,
> Kind of interesting point is I think the American guy who was the  
> sumo champ in Japan was Samoan.
> Tom Alexander
>
>
>  The Samoan royal family, a product of inbreeding,  were supposedly
> larger and more muscular than the rest of the local population. I've
> read of one Queen who could break a man's back when angry. It was
> wisest not to annoy Her Majesty. The ancient Egyptians supposedly
> passed the royal line through siblings, and look where that got
> them-- packed away in dusty glass cases, while crowds of tourists
> gawk at them. The Sumo wrestlers of Japan marry into other Sumo
> families, and although they tend to die relatively young they do
> retain their superior height and mass, and consequently enjoyed a
> winning monopoly on the sport for centuries-- until an American
> interloper won the championship a few years ago. Perhaps a diet of
> Twinkies and fatty beef trumps genetics in at least this one instance.
>
> On Jan 12, 2010, at 6:56 AM, Steven wrote:
>
>> If the Hawaiian King had two children, Their child was considered a
>> god.
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com [mailto:grovenet-
>> bounces at rdrop.com] On
>> Behalf Of David Morelli
>> Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2010 12:01 AM
>> To: Forest Grove local interests list
>>
>> It may be an alternate opinion, however, in the historic scheme of
>> evolution, inbreeding has payed an important part.
>>
>> This isn't necessary, of course, for organisms that have non-sexual
>> reproduction.
>>
>> In the cells that undergo sexual reproduction, the DNA comes from
>> each of
>> the parents.  That doesn't work very well when they have different
>> numbers
>> of chromosomes.   So, when there is an evolutionary DNA change that
>> changes
>> the number of chromosomes, how can the new cell find a partner with
>> the same
>> number of chromosomes?
>>
>> Likely a sibling cell.  Or in multi-cellular organisms a sibling
>> organism,
>> since a parent organism that produces one off spring with a new,
>> different
>> number may also produce additional off spring with the same number of
>> chromosomes.  And the new organism wouldn't need to look far for a
>> suitable
>> mate.  I would expect that this applies to the evolution of higher
>> order
>> organisms as well.
>>
>> I wonder if those social groups that practice inbreeding are really
>> trying
>> to evolve?  I wish them luck.
>>
>> David
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> GroveNet mailing list
>> GroveNet at rdrop.com
>> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> GroveNet mailing list
>> GroveNet at rdrop.com
>> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> Diet Help
> Cheap Diet Help Tips. Click here.
> http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/c? 
> cp=4HCTO2pnXBTAv1t8NpJuKQAAJ1CORKrrSABr_kse746cCp3FAAYAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA 
> AAADNAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAYQAAAAAA=
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet


From phoenixacup at gmail.com  Wed Jan 13 11:15:33 2010
From: phoenixacup at gmail.com (Jane Burch-Pesses)
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2010 11:15:33 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] Very interesting article - if you believe in
	evolution.
In-Reply-To: <20100113.082527.22118.0@webmail14.vgs.untd.com>
References: <20100113.082527.22118.0@webmail14.vgs.untd.com>
Message-ID: <d6eeab3d1001131115wb0b22c2p252d081a7c2261fe@mail.gmail.com>

Well, there have been 3 famous American sumo wrestlers (maybe more by now, I
haven't watched sumo in about 10 years) and I think all of them have been
from Hawaii.  The first was, I believe, Japanese and Hawaiian (genetically
speaking).  I have seen photos of him when he was young and (like most of
the young sumo wrestlers) he was rather slender.  The second was, I think,
Samoan.  He became grand champion and had death threats.  (Sumo is both
sport and religion.)  Both of those are retired now.  (The first had an
unusually long career for a sumo wrestler - 20 years.)  There was a third
American when I last saw sumo matches, but I don't know if he is still
around.

The Hawaiian royalty, like sumo wrestlers, were slender when young, but
fatness was considered a sign of beauty so they were "fed up" as they got
older.

Interestingly, some years ago there was a guy from Great Britain
(genetically English I believe) who had a brief but respectable career in
sumo.  He was not good enough to make it to the level of the televised
matches so I never saw a photo of him.  I don't know what his phenotype is.

Jane

On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 8:25 AM, a_tom_51 at juno.com <a_tom_51 at juno.com>wrote:

> Walt,
> Kind of interesting point is I think the American guy who was the sumo
> champ in Japan was Samoan.
> Tom Alexander
>
>
>  The Samoan royal family, a product of inbreeding,  were supposedly
> larger and more muscular than the rest of the local population. I've
> read of one Queen who could break a man's back when angry. It was
> wisest not to annoy Her Majesty. The ancient Egyptians supposedly
> passed the royal line through siblings, and look where that got
> them-- packed away in dusty glass cases, while crowds of tourists
> gawk at them. The Sumo wrestlers of Japan marry into other Sumo
> families, and although they tend to die relatively young they do
> retain their superior height and mass, and consequently enjoyed a
> winning monopoly on the sport for centuries-- until an American
> interloper won the championship a few years ago. Perhaps a diet of
> Twinkies and fatty beef trumps genetics in at least this one instance.
>
> On Jan 12, 2010, at 6:56 AM, Steven wrote:
>
> > If the Hawaiian King had two children, Their child was considered a
> > god.
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com [mailto:grovenet-
> > bounces at rdrop.com] On
> > Behalf Of David Morelli
> > Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2010 12:01 AM
> > To: Forest Grove local interests list
> >
> > It may be an alternate opinion, however, in the historic scheme of
> > evolution, inbreeding has payed an important part.
> >
> > This isn't necessary, of course, for organisms that have non-sexual
> > reproduction.
> >
> > In the cells that undergo sexual reproduction, the DNA comes from
> > each of
> > the parents.  That doesn't work very well when they have different
> > numbers
> > of chromosomes.   So, when there is an evolutionary DNA change that
> > changes
> > the number of chromosomes, how can the new cell find a partner with
> > the same
> > number of chromosomes?
> >
> > Likely a sibling cell.  Or in multi-cellular organisms a sibling
> > organism,
> > since a parent organism that produces one off spring with a new,
> > different
> > number may also produce additional off spring with the same number of
> > chromosomes.  And the new organism wouldn't need to look far for a
> > suitable
> > mate.  I would expect that this applies to the evolution of higher
> > order
> > organisms as well.
> >
> > I wonder if those social groups that practice inbreeding are really
> > trying
> > to evolve?  I wish them luck.
> >
> > David
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > GroveNet mailing list
> > GroveNet at rdrop.com
> > http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > GroveNet mailing list
> > GroveNet at rdrop.com
> > http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> Diet Help
> Cheap Diet Help Tips. Click here.
>
> http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/c?cp=4HCTO2pnXBTAv1t8NpJuKQAAJ1CORKrrSABr_kse746cCp3FAAYAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADNAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAYQAAAAAA=
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>



-- 
Phoenix Acupuncture and Chinese Medicine
Home of the TAO (Team Against Obesity)
www.phoenix-acupuncture.net

From jamsm at aol.com  Wed Jan 13 16:28:16 2010
From: jamsm at aol.com (jamsm at aol.com)
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2010 19:28:16 EST
Subject: [Grovenet] Very interesting article - if you believe in
	evolution.
Message-ID: <16f73.47670df3.387fbf20@aol.com>



FROM WIKI 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sumo
 

Foreign participation
Professional sumo is practiced exclusively in  Japan, but wrestlers of 
other nationalities participate. There are currently 55  wrestlers officially 
listed as foreigners.[7] In July 2007, there were 19  foreigners in the top 
two divisions, an all-time record, and for the first time,  a majority of 
wrestlers in the top sanyaku ranks were from overseas.[8]
A  Japanese-American, Toyonishiki, and the Korean-born Rikid?zan achieved 
sekitori  status prior to World War II, but neither were officially listed as 
foreigners.  The first non-Asian to achieve fame and fortune in sumo was 
Hawaii-born  Takamiyama. He reached the top division in 1968 and in 1972 
became the first  foreigner to win the top division championship. He was followed 
by fellow  Hawaii-born Konishiki, the first foreigner to reach the rank of ?
zeki in 1987;  and the native Hawaiian Akebono, who became the first 
foreign-born yokozuna in  1993. Musashimaru, born in Samoa but from Hawaii, became 
the second foreigner to  reach sumo's top rank in 1999. Both of the current 
yokozuna, Asash?ry? and  Hakuh?, are Mongolian. They are among a group of 
Mongolian wrestlers who have  achieved success in the upper ranks. Wrestlers 
from Eastern European countries  such as Georgia and Russia have also found 
success in the upper levels of sumo.  In 2005 Koto?sh? from Bulgaria 
became the first wrestler of European birth to  attain the ?zeki ranking and the 
first to win a top division championship.[9]  Until relatively recently, the 
Japan Sumo Association had no restrictions at all  on the number of 
foreigners allowed in professional sumo. In May 1992, shortly  after the ?shima 
stable had recruited six Mongolians at the same time, the Sumo  Association's 
new director Dewanoumi, the former yokozuna Sadanoyama, announced  that he 
was considering limiting the number of overseas recruits per stable and  in 
sumo overall.[4] There was no official ruling, but no stable recruited any  
foreigners for the next six years.[10] This unofficial ban was then relaxed, 
but  only two new foreigners per stable were allowed, until the total number 
reached  40.[10] Then in 2002, a one foreigner per stable policy was 
officially adopted.  (The ban was not retroactive, so foreigners recruited before 
the changes were  unaffected). Though the move has been met with criticism, 
there are no plans to  relax the restrictions at this time.[10] However, it 
is possible for a place in  a heya to be opened up if a foreign born wrestler 
acquires Japanese citizenship.  This occurred when Hisanoumi changed his 
nationality from Tongan at the end of  2006, allowing another Tongan to enter 
his stable,[11] and Kyokutenh?'s change  of citizenship allowed ?shima 
stable to recruit Mongolian Kyokushuho in May  2007.

----
The Grouch
:-D
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------

In a message dated 1/13/2010 2:18:04 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,  
phoenixacup at gmail.com writes:
Well, there have been 3 famous American sumo  wrestlers (maybe more by now, 
I
haven't watched sumo in about 10 years) and I  think all of them have been
from Hawaii.  The first was, I believe,  Japanese and Hawaiian (genetically
speaking).  I have seen photos of him  when he was young and (like most of
the young sumo wrestlers) he was rather  slender.  The second was, I think,
Samoan.  He became grand  champion and had death threats.  (Sumo is both
sport and  religion.)  Both of those are retired now.  (The first had  an
unusually long career for a sumo wrestler - 20 years.)  There was a  third
American when I last saw sumo matches, but I don't know if he is  still
around.

The Hawaiian royalty, like sumo wrestlers, were slender  when young, but
fatness was considered a sign of beauty so they were "fed up"  as they got
older.

Interestingly, some years ago there was a guy from  Great Britain
(genetically English I believe) who had a brief but respectable  career in
sumo.  He was not good enough to make it to the level of the  televised
matches so I never saw a photo of him.  I don't know what his  phenotype is.

Jane

On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 8:25 AM,  a_tom_51 at juno.com 
<a_tom_51 at juno.com>wrote:

> Walt,
> Kind  of interesting point is I think the American guy who was the sumo
> champ  in Japan was Samoan.
> Tom Alexander
>
>
>  The  Samoan royal family, a product of inbreeding,  were supposedly
>  larger and more muscular than the rest of the local population. I've
>  read of one Queen who could break a man's back when angry. It was
> wisest  not to annoy Her Majesty. The ancient Egyptians supposedly
> passed the  royal line through siblings, and look where that got
> them-- packed away  in dusty glass cases, while crowds of tourists
> gawk at them. The Sumo  wrestlers of Japan marry into other Sumo
> families, and although they  tend to die relatively young they do
> retain their superior height and  mass, and consequently enjoyed a
> winning monopoly on the sport for  centuries-- until an American
> interloper won the championship a few  years ago. Perhaps a diet of
> Twinkies and fatty beef trumps genetics in  at least this one instance.
>
> On Jan 12, 2010, at 6:56 AM, Steven  wrote:
>
> > If the Hawaiian King had two children, Their child  was considered a
> > god.
> >
> > -----Original  Message-----
> > From: grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com  [mailto:grovenet-
> > bounces at rdrop.com] On
> > Behalf Of  David Morelli
> > Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2010 12:01 AM
> >  To: Forest Grove local interests list
> >
> > It may be an  alternate opinion, however, in the historic scheme of
> > evolution,  inbreeding has payed an important part.
> >
> > This isn't  necessary, of course, for organisms that have non-sexual
> >  reproduction.
> >
> > In the cells that undergo sexual  reproduction, the DNA comes from
> > each of
> > the  parents.  That doesn't work very well when they have different
> >  numbers
> > of chromosomes.   So, when there is an  evolutionary DNA change that
> > changes
> > the number of  chromosomes, how can the new cell find a partner with
> > the  same
> > number of chromosomes?
> >
> > Likely a  sibling cell.  Or in multi-cellular organisms a sibling
> >  organism,
> > since a parent organism that produces one off spring with  a new,
> > different
> > number may also produce additional  off spring with the same number of
> > chromosomes.  And the new  organism wouldn't need to look far for a
> > suitable
> >  mate.  I would expect that this applies to the evolution of higher
>  > order
> > organisms as well.
> >
> > I wonder if  those social groups that practice inbreeding are really
> >  trying
> > to evolve?  I wish them luck.
> >
> >  David
> >


From waltw at teleport.com  Wed Jan 13 16:49:27 2010
From: waltw at teleport.com (Walt Wentz)
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2010 16:49:27 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] Very interesting article - if you believe in
	evolution.
In-Reply-To: <16f73.47670df3.387fbf20@aol.com>
References: <16f73.47670df3.387fbf20@aol.com>
Message-ID: <471CAFFA-DA89-4E98-98CA-346A50914459@teleport.com>

Interesting! Sounds as though the field, although still restricted,  
has slowly become more open to outsiders. I imagine that the first  
foreign champion I remember hearing about was Akebono-- there was a  
great furore when he won his rank, some in Japan regarding it as a  
national tragedy.
I had no idea the Mongolians produced top-rank Sumo wrestlers. I had  
always thought they were generally small in stature.

On Jan 13, 2010, at 4:28 PM, jamsm at aol.com wrote:

>
>
> FROM WIKI
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sumo
>
>
> Foreign participation
> Professional sumo is practiced exclusively in  Japan, but wrestlers of
> other nationalities participate. There are currently 55  wrestlers  
> officially
> listed as foreigners.[7] In July 2007, there were 19  foreigners in  
> the top
> two divisions, an all-time record, and for the first time,  a  
> majority of
> wrestlers in the top sanyaku ranks were from overseas.[8]
> A  Japanese-American, Toyonishiki, and the Korean-born Rikid?zan  
> achieved
> sekitori  status prior to World War II, but neither were officially  
> listed as
> foreigners.  The first non-Asian to achieve fame and fortune in  
> sumo was
> Hawaii-born  Takamiyama. He reached the top division in 1968 and in  
> 1972
> became the first  foreigner to win the top division championship.  
> He was followed
> by fellow  Hawaii-born Konishiki, the first foreigner to reach the  
> rank of ?
> zeki in 1987;  and the native Hawaiian Akebono, who became the first
> foreign-born yokozuna in  1993. Musashimaru, born in Samoa but from  
> Hawaii, became
> the second foreigner to  reach sumo's top rank in 1999. Both of the  
> current
> yokozuna, Asash?ry? and  Hakuh?, are Mongolian. They are among a  
> group of
> Mongolian wrestlers who have  achieved success in the upper ranks.  
> Wrestlers
> from Eastern European countries  such as Georgia and Russia have  
> also found
> success in the upper levels of sumo.  In 2005 Koto?sh? from Bulgaria
> became the first wrestler of European birth to  attain the ?zeki  
> ranking and the
> first to win a top division championship.[9]  Until relatively  
> recently, the
> Japan Sumo Association had no restrictions at all  on the number of
> foreigners allowed in professional sumo. In May 1992, shortly   
> after the ?shima
> stable had recruited six Mongolians at the same time, the Sumo   
> Association's
> new director Dewanoumi, the former yokozuna Sadanoyama, announced   
> that he
> was considering limiting the number of overseas recruits per stable  
> and  in
> sumo overall.[4] There was no official ruling, but no stable  
> recruited any
> foreigners for the next six years.[10] This unofficial ban was then  
> relaxed,
> but  only two new foreigners per stable were allowed, until the  
> total number
> reached  40.[10] Then in 2002, a one foreigner per stable policy was
> officially adopted.  (The ban was not retroactive, so foreigners  
> recruited before
> the changes were  unaffected). Though the move has been met with  
> criticism,
> there are no plans to  relax the restrictions at this time.[10]  
> However, it
> is possible for a place in  a heya to be opened up if a foreign  
> born wrestler
> acquires Japanese citizenship.  This occurred when Hisanoumi  
> changed his
> nationality from Tongan at the end of  2006, allowing another  
> Tongan to enter
> his stable,[11] and Kyokutenh?'s change  of citizenship allowed  
> ?shima
> stable to recruit Mongolian Kyokushuho in May  2007.
>
> ----
> The Grouch
> :-D
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 
> ------
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> In a message dated 1/13/2010 2:18:04 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
> phoenixacup at gmail.com writes:
> Well, there have been 3 famous American sumo  wrestlers (maybe more  
> by now,
> I
> haven't watched sumo in about 10 years) and I  think all of them  
> have been
> from Hawaii.  The first was, I believe,  Japanese and Hawaiian  
> (genetically
> speaking).  I have seen photos of him  when he was young and (like  
> most of
> the young sumo wrestlers) he was rather  slender.  The second was,  
> I think,
> Samoan.  He became grand  champion and had death threats.  (Sumo is  
> both
> sport and  religion.)  Both of those are retired now.  (The first  
> had  an
> unusually long career for a sumo wrestler - 20 years.)  There was  
> a  third
> American when I last saw sumo matches, but I don't know if he is   
> still
> around.
>
> The Hawaiian royalty, like sumo wrestlers, were slender  when  
> young, but
> fatness was considered a sign of beauty so they were "fed up"  as  
> they got
> older.
>
> Interestingly, some years ago there was a guy from  Great Britain
> (genetically English I believe) who had a brief but respectable   
> career in
> sumo.  He was not good enough to make it to the level of the   
> televised
> matches so I never saw a photo of him.  I don't know what his   
> phenotype is.
>
> Jane
>
> On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 8:25 AM,  a_tom_51 at juno.com
> <a_tom_51 at juno.com>wrote:
>
>> Walt,
>> Kind  of interesting point is I think the American guy who was the  
>> sumo
>> champ  in Japan was Samoan.
>> Tom Alexander
>>
>>
>>  The  Samoan royal family, a product of inbreeding,  were supposedly
>>  larger and more muscular than the rest of the local population. I've
>>  read of one Queen who could break a man's back when angry. It was
>> wisest  not to annoy Her Majesty. The ancient Egyptians supposedly
>> passed the  royal line through siblings, and look where that got
>> them-- packed away  in dusty glass cases, while crowds of tourists
>> gawk at them. The Sumo  wrestlers of Japan marry into other Sumo
>> families, and although they  tend to die relatively young they do
>> retain their superior height and  mass, and consequently enjoyed a
>> winning monopoly on the sport for  centuries-- until an American
>> interloper won the championship a few  years ago. Perhaps a diet of
>> Twinkies and fatty beef trumps genetics in  at least this one  
>> instance.
>>
>> On Jan 12, 2010, at 6:56 AM, Steven  wrote:
>>
>>> If the Hawaiian King had two children, Their child  was considered a
>>> god.
>>>
>>> -----Original  Message-----
>>> From: grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com  [mailto:grovenet-
>>> bounces at rdrop.com] On
>>> Behalf Of  David Morelli
>>> Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2010 12:01 AM
>>>  To: Forest Grove local interests list
>>>
>>> It may be an  alternate opinion, however, in the historic scheme of
>>> evolution,  inbreeding has payed an important part.
>>>
>>> This isn't  necessary, of course, for organisms that have non-sexual
>>>  reproduction.
>>>
>>> In the cells that undergo sexual  reproduction, the DNA comes from
>>> each of
>>> the  parents.  That doesn't work very well when they have different
>>>  numbers
>>> of chromosomes.   So, when there is an  evolutionary DNA change that
>>> changes
>>> the number of  chromosomes, how can the new cell find a partner with
>>> the  same
>>> number of chromosomes?
>>>
>>> Likely a  sibling cell.  Or in multi-cellular organisms a sibling
>>>  organism,
>>> since a parent organism that produces one off spring with  a new,
>>> different
>>> number may also produce additional  off spring with the same  
>>> number of
>>> chromosomes.  And the new  organism wouldn't need to look far for a
>>> suitable
>>>  mate.  I would expect that this applies to the evolution of higher
>>> order
>>> organisms as well.
>>>
>>> I wonder if  those social groups that practice inbreeding are really
>>>  trying
>>> to evolve?  I wish them luck.
>>>
>>>  David
>>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet



From khourym at verizon.net  Thu Jan 14 08:19:54 2010
From: khourym at verizon.net (Martha Khoury)
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 08:19:54 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] Furnace recommendations needed
Message-ID: <DC650EDD-5916-4291-B5DE-475A3932AAA8@verizon.net>

We're looking at replacing our furnace. It needs some serious repairs  
and it is well over 20 years old.

We are in process of getting one bid from Specialty Heating. Anyone  
have some other recommendations, especially local?

Thanks.

--Martha K.

From jschrag at fgnewstimes.com  Thu Jan 14 09:12:45 2010
From: jschrag at fgnewstimes.com (jschrag at fgnewstimes.com)
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 09:12:45 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] Furnace recommendations needed
In-Reply-To: <DC650EDD-5916-4291-B5DE-475A3932AAA8@verizon.net>
References: <DC650EDD-5916-4291-B5DE-475A3932AAA8@verizon.net>
Message-ID: <B6FAD9BDBBF5244BBDD2924075EECBCA41B38E75@PMG-EXCHANGE.pmg.pamplincom.com>

Martha

We recently needed some work done of the News-Times furnace (which is a bit older than yours --- it originally burned sawdust!)

For part of the work we used Hedin's Heating. They were very reasonable and great to work with.

Hedin's Heating & Sheet Metal
Forest Grove, OR 97116(503) 359-4620?



John Schrag
Editor & Publisher 
News-Times
Forest Grove, Oregon
503-357-3181
?
Voted the "best small newspaper in Oregon" 2006, 2007, 2008
?
?
?
?
?

-----Original Message-----
From: grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com [mailto:grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com] On Behalf Of Martha Khoury
Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2010 8:20 AM
To: Forest Grove local interests list
Subject: [Grovenet] Furnace recommendations needed

We're looking at replacing our furnace. It needs some serious repairs  
and it is well over 20 years old.

We are in process of getting one bid from Specialty Heating. Anyone  
have some other recommendations, especially local?

Thanks.

--Martha K.
_______________________________________________
GroveNet mailing list
GroveNet at rdrop.com
http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet


From allnutt at verizon.net  Thu Jan 14 09:13:36 2010
From: allnutt at verizon.net (Katie Allnutt)
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 09:13:36 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] Furnace recommendations needed
In-Reply-To: <DC650EDD-5916-4291-B5DE-475A3932AAA8@verizon.net>
References: <DC650EDD-5916-4291-B5DE-475A3932AAA8@verizon.net>
Message-ID: <B66D0CE4-DEE0-4B03-A12A-921AABAD103C@verizon.net>

We will be in the same boat very soon with our furnace so I'll be  
happy to hear of your experience with who ever you choose.

Katie

On Jan 14, 2010, at 8:19 AM, Martha Khoury wrote:

> We're looking at replacing our furnace. It needs some serious repairs
> and it is well over 20 years old.
>
> We are in process of getting one bid from Specialty Heating. Anyone
> have some other recommendations, especially local?
>
> Thanks.
>
> --Martha K.
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet


From rab at jurislex.com  Thu Jan 14 09:44:42 2010
From: rab at jurislex.com (Bob Browning)
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 09:44:42 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] Furnace recommendations needed
In-Reply-To: <B6FAD9BDBBF5244BBDD2924075EECBCA41B38E75@PMG-EXCHANGE.pmg.pamplincom.com>
References: <DC650EDD-5916-4291-B5DE-475A3932AAA8@verizon.net>
	<B6FAD9BDBBF5244BBDD2924075EECBCA41B38E75@PMG-EXCHANGE.pmg.pamplincom.com>
Message-ID: <4B4F580A.5070406@jurislex.com>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/attachments/20100114/f8ec0d2e/attachment.html 

From phoenixacup at gmail.com  Thu Jan 14 11:38:58 2010
From: phoenixacup at gmail.com (Jane Burch-Pesses)
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 11:38:58 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] Very interesting article - if you believe in
	evolution.
In-Reply-To: <16f73.47670df3.387fbf20@aol.com>
References: <16f73.47670df3.387fbf20@aol.com>
Message-ID: <d6eeab3d1001141138h3a8cabd1md3d516288bbeddc0@mail.gmail.com>

Thanks, Grouch.  Nice to see that my memory is still fairly accurate (at
least up to the point where I stopped watching sumo, and, of course, I
blanked on the names).

I have a distinct memory of watching Takamiyama lose a match and swing his
right arm in an abbreviated "rats!" gesture.  It was funny to see such an
American gesture in the middle of all that Japanese pomp and ceremony.

Jane B-P

On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 4:28 PM, <jamsm at aol.com> wrote:

>
>
> FROM WIKI
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sumo
>
>
> Foreign participation
> Professional sumo is practiced exclusively in  Japan, but wrestlers of
> other nationalities participate. There are currently 55  wrestlers
> officially
> listed as foreigners.[7] In July 2007, there were 19  foreigners in the top
> two divisions, an all-time record, and for the first time,  a majority of
> wrestlers in the top sanyaku ranks were from overseas.[8]
> A  Japanese-American, Toyonishiki, and the Korean-born Rikid?zan achieved
> sekitori  status prior to World War II, but neither were officially listed
> as
> foreigners.  The first non-Asian to achieve fame and fortune in sumo was
> Hawaii-born  Takamiyama. He reached the top division in 1968 and in 1972
> became the first  foreigner to win the top division championship. He was
> followed
> by fellow  Hawaii-born Konishiki, the first foreigner to reach the rank of
> ?
> zeki in 1987;  and the native Hawaiian Akebono, who became the first
> foreign-born yokozuna in  1993. Musashimaru, born in Samoa but from Hawaii,
> became
> the second foreigner to  reach sumo's top rank in 1999. Both of the current
> yokozuna, Asash?ry? and  Hakuh?, are Mongolian. They are among a group of
> Mongolian wrestlers who have  achieved success in the upper ranks.
> Wrestlers
> from Eastern European countries  such as Georgia and Russia have also found
> success in the upper levels of sumo.  In 2005 Koto?sh? from Bulgaria
> became the first wrestler of European birth to  attain the ?zeki ranking
> and the
> first to win a top division championship.[9]  Until relatively recently,
> the
> Japan Sumo Association had no restrictions at all  on the number of
> foreigners allowed in professional sumo. In May 1992, shortly  after the
> ?shima
> stable had recruited six Mongolians at the same time, the Sumo
>  Association's
> new director Dewanoumi, the former yokozuna Sadanoyama, announced  that he
> was considering limiting the number of overseas recruits per stable and  in
> sumo overall.[4] There was no official ruling, but no stable recruited any
> foreigners for the next six years.[10] This unofficial ban was then
> relaxed,
> but  only two new foreigners per stable were allowed, until the total
> number
> reached  40.[10] Then in 2002, a one foreigner per stable policy was
> officially adopted.  (The ban was not retroactive, so foreigners recruited
> before
> the changes were  unaffected). Though the move has been met with criticism,
> there are no plans to  relax the restrictions at this time.[10] However, it
> is possible for a place in  a heya to be opened up if a foreign born
> wrestler
> acquires Japanese citizenship.  This occurred when Hisanoumi changed his
> nationality from Tongan at the end of  2006, allowing another Tongan to
> enter
> his stable,[11] and Kyokutenh?'s change  of citizenship allowed ?shima
> stable to recruit Mongolian Kyokushuho in May  2007.
>
> ----
> The Grouch
> :-D
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> In a message dated 1/13/2010 2:18:04 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
> phoenixacup at gmail.com writes:
> Well, there have been 3 famous American sumo  wrestlers (maybe more by now,
> I
> haven't watched sumo in about 10 years) and I  think all of them have been
> from Hawaii.  The first was, I believe,  Japanese and Hawaiian (genetically
> speaking).  I have seen photos of him  when he was young and (like most of
> the young sumo wrestlers) he was rather  slender.  The second was, I think,
> Samoan.  He became grand  champion and had death threats.  (Sumo is both
> sport and  religion.)  Both of those are retired now.  (The first had  an
> unusually long career for a sumo wrestler - 20 years.)  There was a  third
> American when I last saw sumo matches, but I don't know if he is  still
> around.
>
> The Hawaiian royalty, like sumo wrestlers, were slender  when young, but
> fatness was considered a sign of beauty so they were "fed up"  as they got
> older.
>
> Interestingly, some years ago there was a guy from  Great Britain
> (genetically English I believe) who had a brief but respectable  career in
> sumo.  He was not good enough to make it to the level of the  televised
> matches so I never saw a photo of him.  I don't know what his  phenotype
> is.
>
> Jane
>
> On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 8:25 AM,  a_tom_51 at juno.com
> <a_tom_51 at juno.com>wrote:
>
> > Walt,
> > Kind  of interesting point is I think the American guy who was the sumo
> > champ  in Japan was Samoan.
> > Tom Alexander
> >
> >
> >  The  Samoan royal family, a product of inbreeding,  were supposedly
> >  larger and more muscular than the rest of the local population. I've
> >  read of one Queen who could break a man's back when angry. It was
> > wisest  not to annoy Her Majesty. The ancient Egyptians supposedly
> > passed the  royal line through siblings, and look where that got
> > them-- packed away  in dusty glass cases, while crowds of tourists
> > gawk at them. The Sumo  wrestlers of Japan marry into other Sumo
> > families, and although they  tend to die relatively young they do
> > retain their superior height and  mass, and consequently enjoyed a
> > winning monopoly on the sport for  centuries-- until an American
> > interloper won the championship a few  years ago. Perhaps a diet of
> > Twinkies and fatty beef trumps genetics in  at least this one instance.
> >
> > On Jan 12, 2010, at 6:56 AM, Steven  wrote:
> >
> > > If the Hawaiian King had two children, Their child  was considered a
> > > god.
> > >
> > > -----Original  Message-----
> > > From: grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com  [mailto:grovenet-
> > > bounces at rdrop.com] On
> > > Behalf Of  David Morelli
> > > Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2010 12:01 AM
> > >  To: Forest Grove local interests list
> > >
> > > It may be an  alternate opinion, however, in the historic scheme of
> > > evolution,  inbreeding has payed an important part.
> > >
> > > This isn't  necessary, of course, for organisms that have non-sexual
> > >  reproduction.
> > >
> > > In the cells that undergo sexual  reproduction, the DNA comes from
> > > each of
> > > the  parents.  That doesn't work very well when they have different
> > >  numbers
> > > of chromosomes.   So, when there is an  evolutionary DNA change that
> > > changes
> > > the number of  chromosomes, how can the new cell find a partner with
> > > the  same
> > > number of chromosomes?
> > >
> > > Likely a  sibling cell.  Or in multi-cellular organisms a sibling
> > >  organism,
> > > since a parent organism that produces one off spring with  a new,
> > > different
> > > number may also produce additional  off spring with the same number of
> > > chromosomes.  And the new  organism wouldn't need to look far for a
> > > suitable
> > >  mate.  I would expect that this applies to the evolution of higher
> >  > order
> > > organisms as well.
> > >
> > > I wonder if  those social groups that practice inbreeding are really
> > >  trying
> > > to evolve?  I wish them luck.
> > >
> > >  David
> > >
>
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>



-- 
Phoenix Acupuncture and Chinese Medicine
Home of the TAO (Team Against Obesity)
www.phoenix-acupuncture.net

From feralcattamer at yahoo.com  Thu Jan 14 12:42:53 2010
From: feralcattamer at yahoo.com (Holly T.)
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 12:42:53 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [Grovenet] Furnace recommendations needed
In-Reply-To: <DC650EDD-5916-4291-B5DE-475A3932AAA8@verizon.net>
References: <DC650EDD-5916-4291-B5DE-475A3932AAA8@verizon.net>
Message-ID: <1616.91392.qm@web56103.mail.re3.yahoo.com>

Last year when my compressor on my furnace froze up during the Christmas cold snap, I used Swanson Heating and Cooling (They're definitely local.). I was very pleased with the work and the charges were surprisingly reasonable.. Don't know how good they'd be at installing a new furnace however. Best of luck, Martha!

Holly




________________________________
From: Martha Khoury <khourym at verizon.net>
To: Forest Grove local interests list <grovenet at rdrop.com>
Sent: Thu, January 14, 2010 8:19:54 AM
Subject: [Grovenet] Furnace recommendations needed

We're looking at replacing our furnace. It needs some serious repairs? 
and it is well over 20 years old.

We are in process of getting one bid from Specialty Heating. Anyone? 
have some other recommendations, especially local?

Thanks.

--Martha K.
_______________________________________________
GroveNet mailing list
GroveNet at rdrop.com
http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet



      

From smithsmith at gmail.com  Thu Jan 14 14:53:02 2010
From: smithsmith at gmail.com (b Smith)
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 14:53:02 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] Furnace recommendations needed
In-Reply-To: <1616.91392.qm@web56103.mail.re3.yahoo.com>
References: <DC650EDD-5916-4291-B5DE-475A3932AAA8@verizon.net>
	<1616.91392.qm@web56103.mail.re3.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <7eaadfd11001141453wc8c5299k22c64b08bacfa215@mail.gmail.com>

I used Wilfert Sheet Metal in Hillsboro.  Great honest people.  They do not
advertise.  Only word of mouth.
They will not sell you what you do not need.

Barb

On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 12:42 PM, Holly T. <feralcattamer at yahoo.com> wrote:

> Last year when my compressor on my furnace froze up during the Christmas
> cold snap, I used Swanson Heating and Cooling (They're definitely local.). I
> was very pleased with the work and the charges were surprisingly
> reasonable.. Don't know how good they'd be at installing a new furnace
> however. Best of luck, Martha!
>
> Holly
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Martha Khoury <khourym at verizon.net>
> To: Forest Grove local interests list <grovenet at rdrop.com>
> Sent: Thu, January 14, 2010 8:19:54 AM
> Subject: [Grovenet] Furnace recommendations needed
>
> We're looking at replacing our furnace. It needs some serious repairs
> and it is well over 20 years old.
>
> We are in process of getting one bid from Specialty Heating. Anyone
> have some other recommendations, especially local?
>
> Thanks.
>
> --Martha K.
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>

From greenacres2 at verizon.net  Fri Jan 15 12:19:05 2010
From: greenacres2 at verizon.net (George and Jean Cushing)
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 12:19:05 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] activities in forest grove
Message-ID: <003801ca961f$fcffb710$f6ff2530$@net>

We are looking for fun things to do in the Forest Grove area for families
(young and old) from our church.   We have gone bowling, roller-skating, the
light parade, had a make your own pizza night.  We are now looking for other
fun things to do on a Saturday evening in Forest Grove area, If you have any
good ideas please let us know.  Thanks for your help and ideas  George from
Mt. Olive Lutheran Church.


From tosca at prodigy.net  Fri Jan 15 12:50:53 2010
From: tosca at prodigy.net (Bonnie B. Combs)
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 12:50:53 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [Grovenet] activities in forest grove
In-Reply-To: <003801ca961f$fcffb710$f6ff2530$@net>
Message-ID: <660449.76523.qm@web81406.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Hi,

Have you checked the events pages of the Forest Grove News Times?  It is pretty comprehensive.  

\bonnie

--- On Fri, 1/15/10, George and Jean Cushing <greenacres2 at verizon.net> wrote:

> From: George and Jean Cushing <greenacres2 at verizon.net>
> Subject: [Grovenet] activities in forest grove
> To: "'Forest Grove local interests list'" <grovenet at rdrop.com>
> Date: Friday, January 15, 2010, 12:19 PM
> We are looking for fun things to do
> in the Forest Grove area for families
> (young and old) from our church.???We have
> gone bowling, roller-skating, the
> light parade, had a make your own pizza night.? We are
> now looking for other
> fun things to do on a Saturday evening in Forest Grove
> area, If you have any
> good ideas please let us know.? Thanks for your help
> and ideas? George from
> Mt. Olive Lutheran Church.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
> 


From feralcattamer at yahoo.com  Fri Jan 15 13:05:44 2010
From: feralcattamer at yahoo.com (Holly T.)
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 13:05:44 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [Grovenet] activities in forest grove
In-Reply-To: <003801ca961f$fcffb710$f6ff2530$@net>
References: <003801ca961f$fcffb710$f6ff2530$@net>
Message-ID: <513051.72836.qm@web56106.mail.re3.yahoo.com>

Paul and I love to go listen to live music at McMeniman's Grand Lodge. Seems like they always have some great entertainment there on weekends. We have even been known to be the only ones dancing on the floor next to the band down in "The Garage". You can buy a salad and/or have a glass of wine and just have a lovely time. And no cover charge, which is pretty much unheard of in most places where there's live music in Portland.

Holly




________________________________
From: George and Jean Cushing <greenacres2 at verizon.net>
To: Forest Grove local interests list <grovenet at rdrop.com>
Sent: Fri, January 15, 2010 12:19:05 PM
Subject: [Grovenet] activities in forest grove

We are looking for fun things to do in the Forest Grove area for families
(young and old) from our church.   We have gone bowling, roller-skating, the
light parade, had a make your own pizza night.  We are now looking for other
fun things to do on a Saturday evening in Forest Grove area, If you have any
good ideas please let us know.  Thanks for your help and ideas  George from
Mt. Olive Lutheran Church.

_______________________________________________
GroveNet mailing list
GroveNet at rdrop.com
http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet



      

From jo.david at verizon.net  Fri Jan 15 18:56:47 2010
From: jo.david at verizon.net (David Morelli)
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 18:56:47 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] activities in forest grove
In-Reply-To: <003801ca961f$fcffb710$f6ff2530$@net>
References: <003801ca961f$fcffb710$f6ff2530$@net>
Message-ID: <D96C9BA8-005D-4846-8F1F-6C4A975D69C3@verizon.net>

Have you done a "sock hop" at the ice cream shop?  
Visited the skate board park?  
When Spring comes, how about a guided Historic Walking Tour of our National Historic Districts?  
Attend Live theater?  
A tour of our Sake plant? (only adults get to sample)  
Hold a film festival of movies filmed in Forest Grove?  
Record video interviews of random residents?  
Walk/bike/trike the city's bike & walking paths?  
Join a SOLV clean up project?  
Conduct your own Olympics on the exercise stations at Lincoln Park?  
Rent the city pool? 
Produce a movie? 
Attend a Friends of the Library program? ( not sure if any are on Saturday )  
Collect local vehicles for a "50's" theme at Scotty's Drive In?  
Have a Pot Luck and kid run at Rogers Park?  
Organize a graffiti and trash clean up?  
Play a Softball game at Lincoln Park?
A scavenger hunt at Goodwill? (lowest cost collection gets a prize)
... there must be others as well.

David


On Jan 15, 2010, at 12:19 PM, George and Jean Cushing wrote:

> We are looking for fun things to do in the Forest Grove area for families
> (young and old) from our church.   We have gone bowling, roller-skating, the
> light parade, had a make your own pizza night.  We are now looking for other
> fun things to do on a Saturday evening in Forest Grove area, If you have any
> good ideas please let us know.  Thanks for your help and ideas  George from
> Mt. Olive Lutheran Church.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet



From ALLNUTT at verizon.net  Sun Jan 17 16:54:45 2010
From: ALLNUTT at verizon.net (Katie Allnutt)
Date: Sun, 17 Jan 2010 16:54:45 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] Did you get a new Scrabble game?
Message-ID: <28425C09-FB58-4E64-B6BD-FD71BBA6F818@VERIZON.NET>

Dear Grovenuts,

   I'm doing a fund raiser that involves a bunch of letter tiles and  
I was wondering if anybody got a new Scrabble game for Christmas and  
would be willing to donate the old one to a good cause.  If a few of  
the letters are missing that is fine.  Actually the letters are the  
only part I need so if the board is missing that is fine too.

Thanks.

Katie


From kennybc at verizon.net  Mon Jan 18 09:47:47 2010
From: kennybc at verizon.net (kennybc at verizon.net)
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2010 09:47:47 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] Theatre In The Grove Auditions CABARET
Message-ID: <201001181747.o0IHlhwF069050@mail.ipinc.net>


Hi All,

For those who may be interested, below is the information for Theatre 
in the Grove's auditions for CABARET.

Hope to see you there!
Ken Centers

******************************************
Auditions for Theatre in the Grove's production of CABARET are 
January 24th at 6:00pm, January 25th and 26th at 7:00pm at Theater In 
The Grove's Main Street Studio, 2011 Main Street in Forest Grove.

Auditions will consist of cold readings from the script. Please 
prepare a one minute song and be ready to sing. Please bring sheet 
music or an accompaniment CD. Please wear comfortable clothing and be 
prepared to dance. If interested in a dance role, please prepare a 30 
second solo routine to showcase your dance talent.

Call backs are at the discretion of the Director.

Needed are adult women and men of all ages. Due to mature themes, 
minors will only be auditioned if they are accompanied by parent and 
sign a waiver. Please, no minors under the age of 16. Parents are 
requested to attend the audition with their minor children.

All roles are volunteer.

CABARET opens April 16th and runs through May 2nd on Friday and 
Saturday evenings at 8:00pm and Sunday matinees at 2:30pm.
For more information please email 
<mailto:pcenters1 at yahoo.com>pcenters1 at yahoo.com, or visit 
www.theatreinthegrove.org.

Cast of Characters

Master of Ceremonies (Emcee) - The host at the Kit Kat Klub.

Clifford Bradshaw (20's) - An American novelist.

Sally Bowles (20's) - A British cabaret singer at the Kit Kat Klub.

Fraulein Schneider (Middle Aged) - A German landlady who rents rooms 
in her large flat.

Herr Schultz (Middle Aged) - A German-Jewish man, one of Frl. 
Schneider's roomers and the proprietor of a Fruit Shop

Fraulein Kost (20's/30's) - Another of Frl. Schneider's German 
roomers. She earns a living by offering favors to sailors.

Ernst Ludwig (30's) - A friendly and likeable German.

Ensemble: Klub singers and dancers, Klub patrons, Fruit Shop guests, 
Customs Officers, Nazi Guards.



From phoenixacup at gmail.com  Mon Jan 18 09:49:01 2010
From: phoenixacup at gmail.com (Jane Burch-Pesses)
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2010 09:49:01 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] Did you get a new Scrabble game?
In-Reply-To: <28425C09-FB58-4E64-B6BD-FD71BBA6F818@VERIZON.NET>
References: <28425C09-FB58-4E64-B6BD-FD71BBA6F818@VERIZON.NET>
Message-ID: <d6eeab3d1001180949rbc42b61xc158e2a73afa49da@mail.gmail.com>

Have you tried Goodwill?

Good luck,

Jane B-P

On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 4:54 PM, Katie Allnutt <ALLNUTT at verizon.net> wrote:

> Dear Grovenuts,
>
>   I'm doing a fund raiser that involves a bunch of letter tiles and
> I was wondering if anybody got a new Scrabble game for Christmas and
> would be willing to donate the old one to a good cause.  If a few of
> the letters are missing that is fine.  Actually the letters are the
> only part I need so if the board is missing that is fine too.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Katie
>
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>



-- 
Phoenix Acupuncture and Chinese Medicine
Home of the TAO (Team Against Obesity)
www.phoenix-acupuncture.net

From allnutt at verizon.net  Mon Jan 18 10:44:34 2010
From: allnutt at verizon.net (Katie Allnutt)
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2010 10:44:34 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] Did you get a new Scrabble game?
In-Reply-To: <d6eeab3d1001180949rbc42b61xc158e2a73afa49da@mail.gmail.com>
References: <28425C09-FB58-4E64-B6BD-FD71BBA6F818@VERIZON.NET>
	<d6eeab3d1001180949rbc42b61xc158e2a73afa49da@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <59C08712-799B-4386-8224-1D78BF0F1DD3@verizon.net>

Yes. : )
I need approx the equivalent of 7 games and I have 4 so far.

Katie

PS And I also need to clarify one point. The games will be part of  
group bonding activities between fund raisers, the letters won't be  
used in the actual fund raising itself. I wrote that first sentence  
in a hurry when I was tired, and trying to be brief so I hope that I  
didn't mislead anyone about the particulars even though I see in  
hindsight the words didn't come out that way.


On Jan 18, 2010, at 9:49 AM, Jane Burch-Pesses wrote:

> Have you tried Goodwill?
>
> Good luck,
>
> Jane B-P
>
> On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 4:54 PM, Katie Allnutt  
> <ALLNUTT at verizon.net> wrote:
>
>> Dear Grovenuts,
>>
>>   I'm doing a fund raiser that involves a bunch of letter tiles and
>> I was wondering if anybody got a new Scrabble game for Christmas and
>> would be willing to donate the old one to a good cause.  If a few of
>> the letters are missing that is fine.  Actually the letters are the
>> only part I need so if the board is missing that is fine too.
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> Katie
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> GroveNet mailing list
>> GroveNet at rdrop.com
>> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>>
>
>
>
> -- 
> Phoenix Acupuncture and Chinese Medicine
> Home of the TAO (Team Against Obesity)
> www.phoenix-acupuncture.net
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet


From phoenixacup at gmail.com  Mon Jan 18 11:43:10 2010
From: phoenixacup at gmail.com (Jane Burch-Pesses)
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2010 11:43:10 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] Did you get a new Scrabble game?
In-Reply-To: <59C08712-799B-4386-8224-1D78BF0F1DD3@verizon.net>
References: <28425C09-FB58-4E64-B6BD-FD71BBA6F818@VERIZON.NET>
	<d6eeab3d1001180949rbc42b61xc158e2a73afa49da@mail.gmail.com>
	<59C08712-799B-4386-8224-1D78BF0F1DD3@verizon.net>
Message-ID: <d6eeab3d1001181143j9e24548yf8ee729ad0bb2b4@mail.gmail.com>

How many Goodwill's did you try?  There are at least 2, maybe 3 in
Hillsboro.  I would check them for you if you haven't checked them already
(and if no one on Grovenet happens to have 3 Scrabble games for you).

Jane B-P

On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 10:44 AM, Katie Allnutt <allnutt at verizon.net> wrote:

> Yes. : )
> I need approx the equivalent of 7 games and I have 4 so far.
>
> Katie
>
> PS And I also need to clarify one point. The games will be part of
> group bonding activities between fund raisers, the letters won't be
> used in the actual fund raising itself. I wrote that first sentence
> in a hurry when I was tired, and trying to be brief so I hope that I
> didn't mislead anyone about the particulars even though I see in
> hindsight the words didn't come out that way.
>
>
> On Jan 18, 2010, at 9:49 AM, Jane Burch-Pesses wrote:
>
> > Have you tried Goodwill?
> >
> > Good luck,
> >
> > Jane B-P
> >
> > On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 4:54 PM, Katie Allnutt
> > <ALLNUTT at verizon.net> wrote:
> >
> >> Dear Grovenuts,
> >>
> >>   I'm doing a fund raiser that involves a bunch of letter tiles and
> >> I was wondering if anybody got a new Scrabble game for Christmas and
> >> would be willing to donate the old one to a good cause.  If a few of
> >> the letters are missing that is fine.  Actually the letters are the
> >> only part I need so if the board is missing that is fine too.
> >>
> >> Thanks.
> >>
> >> Katie
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> GroveNet mailing list
> >> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> >> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Phoenix Acupuncture and Chinese Medicine
> > Home of the TAO (Team Against Obesity)
> > www.phoenix-acupuncture.net
> > _______________________________________________
> > GroveNet mailing list
> > GroveNet at rdrop.com
> > http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>



-- 
Phoenix Acupuncture and Chinese Medicine
Home of the TAO (Team Against Obesity)
www.phoenix-acupuncture.net

From allnutt at verizon.net  Mon Jan 18 11:53:12 2010
From: allnutt at verizon.net (Katie Allnutt)
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2010 11:53:12 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] Did you get a new Scrabble game?
In-Reply-To: <d6eeab3d1001181143j9e24548yf8ee729ad0bb2b4@mail.gmail.com>
References: <28425C09-FB58-4E64-B6BD-FD71BBA6F818@VERIZON.NET>
	<d6eeab3d1001180949rbc42b61xc158e2a73afa49da@mail.gmail.com>
	<59C08712-799B-4386-8224-1D78BF0F1DD3@verizon.net>
	<d6eeab3d1001181143j9e24548yf8ee729ad0bb2b4@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <19062193-5ADD-4809-B27E-9DC294FC45BC@verizon.net>

I tried the FG goodwill this weekend but the others were on my list  
sometime when I am in Hillsboro.
If you are heading there already that would be wonderful!  Of course  
I will repay you if you buy them.

The game Bananagrams also would be good, however it is a relatively  
new game so I wouldn't expect any Goodwills to have one.

Katie

My niece introduced us to Bananagrams and if you like Scrabble you'll  
probably like it too.  It is faster than Scrabble and you play with  
your own set of letters and no body gets to steal the spot for your  
next word. : )


On Jan 18, 2010, at 11:43 AM, Jane Burch-Pesses wrote:

> How many Goodwill's did you try?  There are at least 2, maybe 3 in
> Hillsboro.  I would check them for you if you haven't checked them  
> already
> (and if no one on Grovenet happens to have 3 Scrabble games for you).
>
> Jane B-P
>
> On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 10:44 AM, Katie Allnutt  
> <allnutt at verizon.net> wrote:
>
>> Yes. : )
>> I need approx the equivalent of 7 games and I have 4 so far.
>>
>> Katie
>>
>> PS And I also need to clarify one point. The games will be part of
>> group bonding activities between fund raisers, the letters won't be
>> used in the actual fund raising itself. I wrote that first sentence
>> in a hurry when I was tired, and trying to be brief so I hope that I
>> didn't mislead anyone about the particulars even though I see in
>> hindsight the words didn't come out that way.
>>
>>
>> On Jan 18, 2010, at 9:49 AM, Jane Burch-Pesses wrote:
>>
>>> Have you tried Goodwill?
>>>
>>> Good luck,
>>>
>>> Jane B-P
>>>
>>> On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 4:54 PM, Katie Allnutt
>>> <ALLNUTT at verizon.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Dear Grovenuts,
>>>>
>>>>   I'm doing a fund raiser that involves a bunch of letter tiles and
>>>> I was wondering if anybody got a new Scrabble game for Christmas  
>>>> and
>>>> would be willing to donate the old one to a good cause.  If a  
>>>> few of
>>>> the letters are missing that is fine.  Actually the letters are the
>>>> only part I need so if the board is missing that is fine too.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks.
>>>>
>>>> Katie
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> GroveNet mailing list
>>>> GroveNet at rdrop.com
>>>> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Phoenix Acupuncture and Chinese Medicine
>>> Home of the TAO (Team Against Obesity)
>>> www.phoenix-acupuncture.net
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> GroveNet mailing list
>>> GroveNet at rdrop.com
>>> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> GroveNet mailing list
>> GroveNet at rdrop.com
>> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>>
>
>
>
> -- 
> Phoenix Acupuncture and Chinese Medicine
> Home of the TAO (Team Against Obesity)
> www.phoenix-acupuncture.net
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet


From hannah at teleport.com  Mon Jan 18 18:36:15 2010
From: hannah at teleport.com (Kristy Gravlin)
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2010 20:36:15 -0600
Subject: [Grovenet] Did you get a new Scrabble game?
In-Reply-To: <19062193-5ADD-4809-B27E-9DC294FC45BC@verizon.net>
Message-ID: <C77A76BF.128ED%hannah@teleport.com>




 We used to take tiles (1/2 inch square maybe) and a Magic Marker of
whatever size would work best...and make our own. More effort, of course,
but sometimes one does what one must to make a project work.

Kristy



From allnutt at verizon.net  Mon Jan 18 20:18:54 2010
From: allnutt at verizon.net (Katie Allnutt)
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2010 20:18:54 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] Did you get a new Scrabble game?
In-Reply-To: <C77A76BF.128ED%hannah@teleport.com>
References: <C77A76BF.128ED%hannah@teleport.com>
Message-ID: <5E1801E6-E5AE-4349-BD87-C6F7087A321A@verizon.net>

Thanks for the idea. I couldn't fathom buying new games and I didn't  
want to face what it would take if I can't get the # needed. But  
seeing the suggestion in print makes it sound quite do able if it  
comes to that. I'm sure my fellow fund raisers would pitch in to help  
too if needed and we would make it another bonding activity.
: )

Katie


On Jan 18, 2010, at 6:36 PM, Kristy Gravlin wrote:

>
>
>
>  We used to take tiles (1/2 inch square maybe) and a Magic Marker of
> whatever size would work best...and make our own. More effort, of  
> course,
> but sometimes one does what one must to make a project work.
>
> Kristy
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet


From obrzl at verizon.net  Mon Jan 18 20:44:31 2010
From: obrzl at verizon.net (mark oberzil)
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2010 20:44:31 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [Grovenet] Did you get a new Scrabble game?
In-Reply-To: <5E1801E6-E5AE-4349-BD87-C6F7087A321A@verizon.net>
Message-ID: <986961.9785.qm@web84206.mail.re3.yahoo.com>

Here's another idea: if they must all be Scrabble size, I could rip a piece of square stock out of maple or oak and cut off tiles, which?could then be marked?
?
Mark

--- On Tue, 1/19/10, Katie Allnutt <allnutt at verizon.net> wrote:


From: Katie Allnutt <allnutt at verizon.net>
Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Did you get a new Scrabble game?
To: "Forest Grove local interests list" <grovenet at rdrop.com>
Date: Tuesday, January 19, 2010, 4:18 AM


Thanks for the idea. I couldn't fathom buying new games and I didn't? 
want to face what it would take if I can't get the # needed. But? 
seeing the suggestion in print makes it sound quite do able if it? 
comes to that. I'm sure my fellow fund raisers would pitch in to help? 
too if needed and we would make it another bonding activity.
: )

Katie


On Jan 18, 2010, at 6:36 PM, Kristy Gravlin wrote:

>
>
>
>? We used to take tiles (1/2 inch square maybe) and a Magic Marker of
> whatever size would work best...and make our own. More effort, of? 
> course,
> but sometimes one does what one must to make a project work.
>
> Kristy
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet

_______________________________________________
GroveNet mailing list
GroveNet at rdrop.com
http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet

From allnutt at verizon.net  Mon Jan 18 20:54:37 2010
From: allnutt at verizon.net (Katie Allnutt)
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2010 20:54:37 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] Did you get a new Scrabble game?
In-Reply-To: <986961.9785.qm@web84206.mail.re3.yahoo.com>
References: <986961.9785.qm@web84206.mail.re3.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <259DCBA2-9D63-484E-9E94-3E51E6C72E37@verizon.net>

I could even supply an oak board from a tree that used to be in our  
front yard.
I know where you live Mark so if needed I will definitely take you up  
on that offer.
Thank you!

Katie
And I'll call you in a few days to let you know.

On Jan 18, 2010, at 8:44 PM, mark oberzil wrote:

> Here's another idea: if they must all be Scrabble size, I could rip  
> a piece of square stock out of maple or oak and cut off tiles,  
> which could then be marked?
>
> Mark
>
> --- On Tue, 1/19/10, Katie Allnutt <allnutt at verizon.net> wrote:
>
>
> From: Katie Allnutt <allnutt at verizon.net>
> Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Did you get a new Scrabble game?
> To: "Forest Grove local interests list" <grovenet at rdrop.com>
> Date: Tuesday, January 19, 2010, 4:18 AM
>
>
> Thanks for the idea. I couldn't fathom buying new games and I didn't
> want to face what it would take if I can't get the # needed. But
> seeing the suggestion in print makes it sound quite do able if it
> comes to that. I'm sure my fellow fund raisers would pitch in to help
> too if needed and we would make it another bonding activity.
> : )
>
> Katie
>
>
> On Jan 18, 2010, at 6:36 PM, Kristy Gravlin wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>>   We used to take tiles (1/2 inch square maybe) and a Magic Marker of
>> whatever size would work best...and make our own. More effort, of
>> course,
>> but sometimes one does what one must to make a project work.
>>
>> Kristy
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> GroveNet mailing list
>> GroveNet at rdrop.com
>> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet


From Leslie.Neyman at pobox.com  Wed Jan 20 09:35:56 2010
From: Leslie.Neyman at pobox.com (Leslie.Neyman)
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2010 09:35:56 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] NEED A LOW COST PIANO for Children's voice classes
Message-ID: <2196E75D01994EB799DB0BE01FFB3FF3@Office>

Please see the post below. If anyone has or knows of a piano that needs a
new home please contact Angela.

 

Thanks!

 

Leslie

 

  _____  

From: Angela Reiswig [mailto:areiswig at verizon.net] 
Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2010 9:57 PM
To: Angela Reiswig
Subject: Children's voice classes

 

Hello All!

 

I?m sending you a little note because you?ve expressed interest to let you
know where I?m at with this!  

 

I have found 2 great places to teach! One is in Beaverton on Beaverdam Road.
This is just off of 217 behind Ludemans!  And I will be there on Thursday?s.
And also in Forest Grove, the Sparrow Ballroom on the corner of Pacific and
A street.  The Ballroom will be the entire studio?s recital venue as it is
PERFECT for vocal performance!   I will be in Forest Grove on Wednesday?s.

 

Because this has taken so long (doesn?t everything take longer than you
think!) and because some of my materials are still not in, we are going to
put off the beginning of classes until February.  I will be in touch again
soon.  My brochure is almost done and when it is, I?ll send you one in the
mail!  

 

Here?s the line up so far:

Age 7-9 3:30

Age 10-12 4:30

Age 13-17 5:30

 

Same time/age group in both places. 

 

These are beginning voice classes. Later we will add intermediate level
classes and perhaps an advanced class.  

 

Until then, don?t hesitate to call or text or email!  And tell your friends!


 

Blessings to you, and Joy to our children!

 

PS.  I need a piano for the Forest Grove studio!  I have a keyboard, but the
owner said I could have a piano if it is movable! Piano?s are BEST!  So,
please let me know if you know someone who wants to get rid of theirs for
very low cost!  

 

Angela Reiswig

Animat? Voice Studio

www.animatevoice.com

503-502-8302 

 

 


From Kathy.Ayala at nike.com  Wed Jan 20 09:39:22 2010
From: Kathy.Ayala at nike.com (Ayala, Kathy)
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2010 09:39:22 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] NEED A LOW COST PIANO for Children's voice classes
In-Reply-To: <2196E75D01994EB799DB0BE01FFB3FF3@Office>
References: <2196E75D01994EB799DB0BE01FFB3FF3@Office>
Message-ID: <201001201739.o0KHdXan045356@barrierL241.nike.com>

Hi Everyone, 

I am looking for a place to have some car work done and wondering if any of you know anything about "Jim's Auto" here in Forest Grove. I was trying to stay local.

Thanks

-----Original Message-----
From: grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com [mailto:grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com] On Behalf Of Leslie.Neyman
Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 9:36 AM
To: 'Forest Grove local interests list'
Cc: Angela Reiswig
Subject: [Grovenet] NEED A LOW COST PIANO for Children's voice classes

Please see the post below. If anyone has or knows of a piano that needs a new home please contact Angela.

 

Thanks!

 

Leslie

 

  _____  

From: Angela Reiswig [mailto:areiswig at verizon.net]
Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2010 9:57 PM
To: Angela Reiswig
Subject: Children's voice classes

 

Hello All!

 

I'm sending you a little note because you've expressed interest to let you know where I'm at with this!  

 

I have found 2 great places to teach! One is in Beaverton on Beaverdam Road.
This is just off of 217 behind Ludemans!  And I will be there on Thursday's.
And also in Forest Grove, the Sparrow Ballroom on the corner of Pacific and A street.  The Ballroom will be the entire studio's recital venue as it is
PERFECT for vocal performance!   I will be in Forest Grove on Wednesday's.

 

Because this has taken so long (doesn't everything take longer than you
think!) and because some of my materials are still not in, we are going to put off the beginning of classes until February.  I will be in touch again soon.  My brochure is almost done and when it is, I'll send you one in the mail!  

 

Here's the line up so far:

Age 7-9 3:30

Age 10-12 4:30

Age 13-17 5:30

 

Same time/age group in both places. 

 

These are beginning voice classes. Later we will add intermediate level classes and perhaps an advanced class.  

 

Until then, don't hesitate to call or text or email!  And tell your friends!


 

Blessings to you, and Joy to our children!

 

PS.  I need a piano for the Forest Grove studio!  I have a keyboard, but the owner said I could have a piano if it is movable! Piano's are BEST!  So, please let me know if you know someone who wants to get rid of theirs for very low cost!  

 

Angela Reiswig

Animat? Voice Studio

www.animatevoice.com

503-502-8302 

 

 

_______________________________________________
GroveNet mailing list
GroveNet at rdrop.com
http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet



From oldredwagon at verizon.net  Wed Jan 20 10:17:38 2010
From: oldredwagon at verizon.net (Marian Cakarnis)
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2010 10:17:38 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] NEED A LOW COST PIANO for Children's voice classes
In-Reply-To: <2196E75D01994EB799DB0BE01FFB3FF3@Office>
References: <2196E75D01994EB799DB0BE01FFB3FF3@Office>
Message-ID: <91210DD281B142A58A3340D3726DC444@JeffVAIO>

Leslie,
I just thought of another place...
The Rogers room at the library - they have a Steinway Grand Piano and the 
rent is pretty cheap.

Marian

--------------------------------------------------
From: "Leslie.Neyman" <Leslie.Neyman at pobox.com>
Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 9:35 AM
To: "'Forest Grove local interests list'" <grovenet at rdrop.com>
Cc: "Angela Reiswig" <areiswig at verizon.net>
Subject: [Grovenet] NEED A LOW COST PIANO for Children's voice classes

> Please see the post below. If anyone has or knows of a piano that needs a
> new home please contact Angela.
>
>
>
> Thanks!
>
>
>
> Leslie
>
>
>
>  _____
>
> From: Angela Reiswig [mailto:areiswig at verizon.net]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2010 9:57 PM
> To: Angela Reiswig
> Subject: Children's voice classes
>
>
>
> Hello All!
>
>
>
> I'm sending you a little note because you've expressed interest to let you
> know where I'm at with this!
>
>
>
> I have found 2 great places to teach! One is in Beaverton on Beaverdam 
> Road.
> This is just off of 217 behind Ludemans!  And I will be there on Thursday's.
> And also in Forest Grove, the Sparrow Ballroom on the corner of Pacific 
> and
> A street.  The Ballroom will be the entire studio's recital venue as it is
> PERFECT for vocal performance!   I will be in Forest Grove on Wednesday's.
>
>
>
> Because this has taken so long (doesn't everything take longer than you
> think!) and because some of my materials are still not in, we are going to
> put off the beginning of classes until February.  I will be in touch again
> soon.  My brochure is almost done and when it is, I'll send you one in the
> mail!
>
>
>
> Here's the line up so far:
>
> Age 7-9 3:30
>
> Age 10-12 4:30
>
> Age 13-17 5:30
>
>
>
> Same time/age group in both places.
>
>
>
> These are beginning voice classes. Later we will add intermediate level
> classes and perhaps an advanced class.
>
>
>
> Until then, don't hesitate to call or text or email!  And tell your 
> friends!
>
>
>
>
> Blessings to you, and Joy to our children!
>
>
>
> PS.  I need a piano for the Forest Grove studio!  I have a keyboard, but 
> the
> owner said I could have a piano if it is movable! Piano's are BEST!  So,
> please let me know if you know someone who wants to get rid of theirs for
> very low cost!
>
>
>
> Angela Reiswig
>
> Animat? Voice Studio
>
> www.animatevoice.com
>
> 503-502-8302
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet 



From edavie at verizon.net  Wed Jan 20 10:18:41 2010
From: edavie at verizon.net (Ed Davie)
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2010 10:18:41 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] NEED A LOW COST PIANO for Children's voice classes
References: <2196E75D01994EB799DB0BE01FFB3FF3@Office>
Message-ID: <53C25480A880426597BF278E1CA06A2A@700x>

I believe the FG United Methodist Church has several pianos for sale, in various states of repair.
You might want to check them out.
Ed

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Leslie.Neyman" <Leslie.Neyman at pobox.com>
To: "'Forest Grove local interests list'" <grovenet at rdrop.com>
Cc: "Angela Reiswig" <areiswig at verizon.net>
Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 9:35 AM
Subject: [Grovenet] NEED A LOW COST PIANO for Children's voice classes


Please see the post below. If anyone has or knows of a piano that needs a
new home please contact Angela.

 

Thanks!

 

Leslie

 

  _____  

From: Angela Reiswig [mailto:areiswig at verizon.net] 
Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2010 9:57 PM
To: Angela Reiswig
Subject: Children's voice classes

 

Hello All!

 

I'm sending you a little note because you've expressed interest to let you
know where I'm at with this!  

 

I have found 2 great places to teach! One is in Beaverton on Beaverdam Road.
This is just off of 217 behind Ludemans!  And I will be there on Thursday's.
And also in Forest Grove, the Sparrow Ballroom on the corner of Pacific and
A street.  The Ballroom will be the entire studio's recital venue as it is
PERFECT for vocal performance!   I will be in Forest Grove on Wednesday's.

 

Because this has taken so long (doesn't everything take longer than you
think!) and because some of my materials are still not in, we are going to
put off the beginning of classes until February.  I will be in touch again
soon.  My brochure is almost done and when it is, I'll send you one in the
mail!  

 

Here's the line up so far:

Age 7-9 3:30

Age 10-12 4:30

Age 13-17 5:30

 

Same time/age group in both places. 

 

These are beginning voice classes. Later we will add intermediate level
classes and perhaps an advanced class.  

 

Until then, don't hesitate to call or text or email!  And tell your friends!


 

Blessings to you, and Joy to our children!

 

PS.  I need a piano for the Forest Grove studio!  I have a keyboard, but the
owner said I could have a piano if it is movable! Piano's are BEST!  So,
please let me know if you know someone who wants to get rid of theirs for
very low cost!  

 

Angela Reiswig

Animat? Voice Studio

www.animatevoice.com

503-502-8302 

 

 

_______________________________________________
GroveNet mailing list
GroveNet at rdrop.com
http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet

From NoSpam03 at comcast.net  Wed Jan 20 10:18:56 2010
From: NoSpam03 at comcast.net (Steven)
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2010 10:18:56 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] NEED A LOW COST PIANO for Children's voice classes
In-Reply-To: <91210DD281B142A58A3340D3726DC444@JeffVAIO>
References: <2196E75D01994EB799DB0BE01FFB3FF3@Office>
	<91210DD281B142A58A3340D3726DC444@JeffVAIO>
Message-ID: <002001ca99fd$07abddc0$17039940$@net>

Concord Piano in Hillsboro rents and sells used pianos.

-----Original Message-----
From: grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com [mailto:grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com] On
Behalf Of Marian Cakarnis
Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 10:18 AM
To: Forest Grove local interests list
Subject: Re: [Grovenet] NEED A LOW COST PIANO for Children's voice classes

Leslie,
I just thought of another place...
The Rogers room at the library - they have a Steinway Grand Piano and the 
rent is pretty cheap.

Marian

--------------------------------------------------
From: "Leslie.Neyman" <Leslie.Neyman at pobox.com>
Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 9:35 AM
To: "'Forest Grove local interests list'" <grovenet at rdrop.com>
Cc: "Angela Reiswig" <areiswig at verizon.net>
Subject: [Grovenet] NEED A LOW COST PIANO for Children's voice classes

> Please see the post below. If anyone has or knows of a piano that needs a
> new home please contact Angela.
>
>
>
> Thanks!
>
>
>
> Leslie
>
>
>
>  _____
>
> From: Angela Reiswig [mailto:areiswig at verizon.net]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2010 9:57 PM
> To: Angela Reiswig
> Subject: Children's voice classes
>
>
>
> Hello All!
>
>
>
> I'm sending you a little note because you've expressed interest to let you
> know where I'm at with this!
>
>
>
> I have found 2 great places to teach! One is in Beaverton on Beaverdam 
> Road.
> This is just off of 217 behind Ludemans!  And I will be there on
Thursday's.
> And also in Forest Grove, the Sparrow Ballroom on the corner of Pacific 
> and
> A street.  The Ballroom will be the entire studio's recital venue as it is
> PERFECT for vocal performance!   I will be in Forest Grove on Wednesday's.
>
>
>
> Because this has taken so long (doesn't everything take longer than you
> think!) and because some of my materials are still not in, we are going to
> put off the beginning of classes until February.  I will be in touch again
> soon.  My brochure is almost done and when it is, I'll send you one in the
> mail!
>
>
>
> Here's the line up so far:
>
> Age 7-9 3:30
>
> Age 10-12 4:30
>
> Age 13-17 5:30
>
>
>
> Same time/age group in both places.
>
>
>
> These are beginning voice classes. Later we will add intermediate level
> classes and perhaps an advanced class.
>
>
>
> Until then, don't hesitate to call or text or email!  And tell your 
> friends!
>
>
>
>
> Blessings to you, and Joy to our children!
>
>
>
> PS.  I need a piano for the Forest Grove studio!  I have a keyboard, but 
> the
> owner said I could have a piano if it is movable! Piano's are BEST!  So,
> please let me know if you know someone who wants to get rid of theirs for
> very low cost!
>
>
>
> Angela Reiswig
>
> Animat? Voice Studio
>
> www.animatevoice.com
>
> 503-502-8302
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet 


_______________________________________________
GroveNet mailing list
GroveNet at rdrop.com
http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet




From chuck at grovenet.net  Wed Jan 20 11:15:21 2010
From: chuck at grovenet.net (chuck)
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2010 11:15:21 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] Jim's Automotive
In-Reply-To: <201001201739.o0KHdXan045356@barrierL241.nike.com>
References: <2196E75D01994EB799DB0BE01FFB3FF3@Office>
	<201001201739.o0KHdXan045356@barrierL241.nike.com>
Message-ID: <4B575649.4050905@grovenet.net>

Ayala, Kathy wrote:
> Hi Everyone, 
>
> I am looking for a place to have some car work done and wondering if any of you know anything about "Jim's Auto" here in Forest Grove. I was trying to stay local.
>
> Thanks
>
>   
I've been using Jim's for years.  No problems.  He's a good guy, and 
very fair. 

chuck


From admin at jeffhowden.com  Wed Jan 20 11:20:56 2010
From: admin at jeffhowden.com (Jeff Howden)
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2010 11:20:56 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] Car Repair (was: NEED A LOW COST PIANO for
	Children's voice classes)
In-Reply-To: <201001201739.o0KHdXan045356@barrierL241.nike.com>
References: <2196E75D01994EB799DB0BE01FFB3FF3@Office>
	<201001201739.o0KHdXan045356@barrierL241.nike.com>
Message-ID: <018e01ca9a05$b18f6840$14ae38c0$@com>

I don't have any experience with Jim's Auto, but can recommend Terry Cahill,
located behind the Forest Fresh Laundromat & Dry on 19th .  He can be
reached at (503) 357-9192.  I've had my car repaired there several times and
he's always been fair, reasonable, and honest.

Jeff

> -----Original Message-----
> From: grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com [mailto:grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com] On
> Behalf Of Ayala, Kathy
> Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 9:39 AM
> To: Forest Grove local interests list
> Cc: Angela Reiswig
> Subject: Re: [Grovenet] NEED A LOW COST PIANO for Children's voice
> classes
> 
> Hi Everyone,
> 
> I am looking for a place to have some car work done and wondering if
> any of you know anything about "Jim's Auto" here in Forest Grove. I was
> trying to stay local.
> 
> Thanks
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com [mailto:grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com] On
> Behalf Of Leslie.Neyman
> Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 9:36 AM
> To: 'Forest Grove local interests list'
> Cc: Angela Reiswig
> Subject: [Grovenet] NEED A LOW COST PIANO for Children's voice classes
> 
> Please see the post below. If anyone has or knows of a piano that needs
> a new home please contact Angela.
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> 
> 
> Leslie
> 
> 
> 
>   _____
> 
> From: Angela Reiswig [mailto:areiswig at verizon.net]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2010 9:57 PM
> To: Angela Reiswig
> Subject: Children's voice classes
> 
> 
> 
> Hello All!
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sending you a little note because you've expressed interest to let
> you know where I'm at with this!
> 
> 
> 
> I have found 2 great places to teach! One is in Beaverton on Beaverdam
> Road.
> This is just off of 217 behind Ludemans!  And I will be there on
> Thursday's.
> And also in Forest Grove, the Sparrow Ballroom on the corner of Pacific
> and A street.  The Ballroom will be the entire studio's recital venue
> as it is
> PERFECT for vocal performance!   I will be in Forest Grove on
> Wednesday's.
> 
> 
> 
> Because this has taken so long (doesn't everything take longer than you
> think!) and because some of my materials are still not in, we are going
> to put off the beginning of classes until February.  I will be in touch
> again soon.  My brochure is almost done and when it is, I'll send you
> one in the mail!
> 
> 
> 
> Here's the line up so far:
> 
> Age 7-9 3:30
> 
> Age 10-12 4:30
> 
> Age 13-17 5:30
> 
> 
> 
> Same time/age group in both places.
> 
> 
> 
> These are beginning voice classes. Later we will add intermediate level
> classes and perhaps an advanced class.
> 
> 
> 
> Until then, don't hesitate to call or text or email!  And tell your
> friends!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blessings to you, and Joy to our children!
> 
> 
> 
> PS.  I need a piano for the Forest Grove studio!  I have a keyboard,
> but the owner said I could have a piano if it is movable! Piano's are
> BEST!  So, please let me know if you know someone who wants to get rid
> of theirs for very low cost!
> 
> 
> 
> Angela Reiswig
> 
> Animat? Voice Studio
> 
> www.animatevoice.com
> 
> 503-502-8302
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
> 
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 8.5.432 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2634 - Release Date:
> 01/20/10 09:12:00




From chopwoodcarrywater at verizon.net  Wed Jan 20 11:50:06 2010
From: chopwoodcarrywater at verizon.net (Julie Larson)
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2010 11:50:06 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] Jim's Automotive
In-Reply-To: <4B575649.4050905@grovenet.net>
References: <2196E75D01994EB799DB0BE01FFB3FF3@Office>
	<201001201739.o0KHdXan045356@barrierL241.nike.com>
	<4B575649.4050905@grovenet.net>
Message-ID: <000301ca9a09$c5078cf0$4f16a6d0$@net>

Jim is the very best, and so fair! When I first moved here many years ago, I
was driving an old car that I had been repeatedly advised to junk. Jim told
me that he could keep that car on the road as long as I wanted to drive it,
and he did. 

-----Original Message-----
From: grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com [mailto:grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com] On
Behalf Of chuck
Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 11:15 AM
To: Forest Grove local interests list
Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Jim's Automotive

Ayala, Kathy wrote:
> Hi Everyone, 
>
> I am looking for a place to have some car work done and wondering if any
of you know anything about "Jim's Auto" here in Forest Grove. I was trying
to stay local.
>
> Thanks
>
>   
I've been using Jim's for years.  No problems.  He's a good guy, and 
very fair. 

chuck

_______________________________________________
GroveNet mailing list
GroveNet at rdrop.com
http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet




From edavie at verizon.net  Wed Jan 20 12:01:25 2010
From: edavie at verizon.net (Ed Davie)
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2010 12:01:25 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] Gutters
Message-ID: <C19703F87A444859B3E35B9B33046DE8@700x>

Hi,
Anyone a recommendation for someone to clean our gutters? They haven't been done in 11 years!
Ed

From waltw at teleport.com  Wed Jan 20 12:03:17 2010
From: waltw at teleport.com (Walt Wentz)
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2010 12:03:17 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] Jim's Automotive
In-Reply-To: <4B575649.4050905@grovenet.net>
References: <2196E75D01994EB799DB0BE01FFB3FF3@Office>
	<201001201739.o0KHdXan045356@barrierL241.nike.com>
	<4B575649.4050905@grovenet.net>
Message-ID: <FAD4F7EB-324A-4F92-8E12-97102643011D@teleport.com>

They have treated me fairly, giving me a good description on work and  
parts needed for repair jobs, even doing a bit of free work when I  
only had a loose battery cable.
Walt

On Jan 20, 2010, at 11:15 AM, chuck wrote:

> Ayala, Kathy wrote:
>> Hi Everyone,
>>
>> I am looking for a place to have some car work done and wondering  
>> if any of you know anything about "Jim's Auto" here in Forest  
>> Grove. I was trying to stay local.
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>>
> I've been using Jim's for years.  No problems.  He's a good guy, and
> very fair.
>
> chuck
>
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet



From obrzl at verizon.net  Wed Jan 20 12:25:38 2010
From: obrzl at verizon.net (mark oberzil)
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2010 12:25:38 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [Grovenet] Gutters
In-Reply-To: <C19703F87A444859B3E35B9B33046DE8@700x>
Message-ID: <71945.66433.qm@web84207.mail.re3.yahoo.com>

How high?
Mark

--- On Wed, 1/20/10, Ed Davie <edavie at verizon.net> wrote:


From: Ed Davie <edavie at verizon.net>
Subject: [Grovenet] Gutters
To: "Grovenet, F.G." <grovenet at rdrop.com>
Date: Wednesday, January 20, 2010, 8:01 PM


Hi,
Anyone a recommendation for someone to clean our gutters? They haven't been done in 11 years!
Ed
_______________________________________________
GroveNet mailing list
GroveNet at rdrop.com
http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet

From feralcattamer at yahoo.com  Wed Jan 20 13:09:45 2010
From: feralcattamer at yahoo.com (Holly T.)
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2010 13:09:45 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [Grovenet] Jim's Automotive
In-Reply-To: <4B575649.4050905@grovenet.net>
References: <2196E75D01994EB799DB0BE01FFB3FF3@Office>
	<201001201739.o0KHdXan045356@barrierL241.nike.com>
	<4B575649.4050905@grovenet.net>
Message-ID: <344662.38843.qm@web56103.mail.re3.yahoo.com>

My son usually does all my auto repairs. But, recently when he was too busy, I had Jim's Automotive do some work on my mom's car. The car had a coolant leak that they fixed and didn't charge all that much for. I would definitely recommend them.

Holly




________________________________
From: chuck <chuck at grovenet.net>
To: Forest Grove local interests list <grovenet at rdrop.com>
Sent: Wed, January 20, 2010 11:15:21 AM
Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Jim's Automotive

Ayala, Kathy wrote:
> Hi Everyone, 
>
> I am looking for a place to have some car work done and wondering if any of you know anything about "Jim's Auto" here in Forest Grove. I was trying to stay local.
>
> Thanks
>
>  
I've been using Jim's for years.  No problems.  He's a good guy, and 
very fair. 

chuck

_______________________________________________
GroveNet mailing list
GroveNet at rdrop.com
http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet



      

From Kathy.Ayala at nike.com  Wed Jan 20 13:13:38 2010
From: Kathy.Ayala at nike.com (Ayala, Kathy)
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2010 13:13:38 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] Jim's Automotive
In-Reply-To: <344662.38843.qm@web56103.mail.re3.yahoo.com>
References: <2196E75D01994EB799DB0BE01FFB3FF3@Office><201001201739.o0KHdXan045356@barrierL241.nike.com><4B575649.4050905@grovenet.net>
	<344662.38843.qm@web56103.mail.re3.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <201001202114.o0KLEVVr022567@barrierL241.nike.com>

Thanks! 

-----Original Message-----
From: grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com [mailto:grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com] On
Behalf Of Holly T.
Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 1:10 PM
To: Forest Grove local interests list
Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Jim's Automotive

My son usually does all my auto repairs. But, recently when he was too
busy, I had Jim's Automotive do some work on my mom's car. The car had a
coolant leak that they fixed and didn't charge all that much for. I
would definitely recommend them.

Holly




________________________________
From: chuck <chuck at grovenet.net>
To: Forest Grove local interests list <grovenet at rdrop.com>
Sent: Wed, January 20, 2010 11:15:21 AM
Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Jim's Automotive

Ayala, Kathy wrote:
> Hi Everyone,
>
> I am looking for a place to have some car work done and wondering if
any of you know anything about "Jim's Auto" here in Forest Grove. I was
trying to stay local.
>
> Thanks
>
>  
I've been using Jim's for years.  No problems.  He's a good guy, and
very fair. 

chuck

_______________________________________________
GroveNet mailing list
GroveNet at rdrop.com
http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet



      
_______________________________________________
GroveNet mailing list
GroveNet at rdrop.com
http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet



From louise_rickard at hotmail.com  Wed Jan 20 13:15:25 2010
From: louise_rickard at hotmail.com (Lousie Rickard)
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2010 13:15:25 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] Jim's Automotive
In-Reply-To: <344662.38843.qm@web56103.mail.re3.yahoo.com>
References: <2196E75D01994EB799DB0BE01FFB3FF3@Office><201001201739.o0KHdXan045356@barrierL241.nike.com><4B575649.4050905@grovenet.net>
	<344662.38843.qm@web56103.mail.re3.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <SNT124-DS888CE8C782160B963E81BFD640@phx.gbl>

Jim's Automotive is 'tops' in my experiences with them over the last 15
years!
Louise

-----Original Message-----
From: grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com [mailto:grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com] On
Behalf Of Holly T.
Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 1:10 PM
To: Forest Grove local interests list
Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Jim's Automotive

My son usually does all my auto repairs. But, recently when he was too busy,
I had Jim's Automotive do some work on my mom's car. The car had a coolant
leak that they fixed and didn't charge all that much for. I would definitely
recommend them.

Holly




________________________________
From: chuck <chuck at grovenet.net>
To: Forest Grove local interests list <grovenet at rdrop.com>
Sent: Wed, January 20, 2010 11:15:21 AM
Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Jim's Automotive

Ayala, Kathy wrote:
> Hi Everyone, 
>
> I am looking for a place to have some car work done and wondering if any
of you know anything about "Jim's Auto" here in Forest Grove. I was trying
to stay local.
>
> Thanks
>
>  
I've been using Jim's for years.  No problems.  He's a good guy, and 
very fair. 

chuck

_______________________________________________
GroveNet mailing list
GroveNet at rdrop.com
http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet



      
_______________________________________________
GroveNet mailing list
GroveNet at rdrop.com
http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet



From chuck at grovenet.net  Wed Jan 20 16:08:08 2010
From: chuck at grovenet.net (chuck)
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2010 16:08:08 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] Jim's Automotive
In-Reply-To: <SNT124-DS888CE8C782160B963E81BFD640@phx.gbl>
References: <2196E75D01994EB799DB0BE01FFB3FF3@Office><201001201739.o0KHdXan045356@barrierL241.nike.com><4B575649.4050905@grovenet.net>	<344662.38843.qm@web56103.mail.re3.yahoo.com>
	<SNT124-DS888CE8C782160B963E81BFD640@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <4B579AE8.1000308@grovenet.net>

Lousie Rickard wrote:
> Jim's Automotive is 'tops' in my experiences with them over the last 15
> years!
> Louise
>
>   

I love all these recommendations.  I feel this is what makes Grovenet 
such a valuable resource.  I have seen these for all types of products 
and services over the years.  Unfortunately, in an email based system, 
they go away. 

For those of you that remember me, I started a little town blog several 
years ago, Forest Grove Live.  Sadly, when the economy tanked and I 
closed my store, I had to let it go.

I have truly missed it, so just recently, I brought it back to life.  If 
nothing else, it keeps me connected to the community, especially since I 
spend most of my time in Hillsboro these days. 

With your permission, I would love to re-post these recommendations on 
the blog.  If anonymity is a concern, I can reduce full names to 
initials, or just leave them out altogether. 

thanks

Chuck Underwood
http://forestgrovelive.com


From rab at jurislex.com  Thu Jan 21 12:32:23 2010
From: rab at jurislex.com (Bob Browning)
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2010 12:32:23 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] An interesting view on 66 and 67 . . .
Message-ID: <4B58B9D7.9010100@jurislex.com>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/attachments/20100121/98896967/attachment-0001.html 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Std Email Signature RAB 3.JPG
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 24675 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : /pipermail/attachments/20100121/98896967/attachment-0001.jpe 

From oldredwagon at verizon.net  Thu Jan 21 13:15:17 2010
From: oldredwagon at verizon.net (Marian Cakarnis)
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2010 13:15:17 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] Auditions for Hillsboro Community Youth Choir (HCYC)
Message-ID: <4A867D2F4D4243AAB934CFD8CE367E7E@JeffVAIO>

As the parent of a singer with the Hillsboro Community Youth Choir, I wanted 
to let everyone know that Cindy Uecker, the director, will be in Forest 
Grove for auditions.  Unfortunately, this announcement didn't make it into 
the Forest Grove News Times, so I'm trying to get the information out to 
anyone who might be interested

Below is the information I've pasted from the flyer, but feel free to call 
me if you have any questions.
Thanks,
Marian
503-357-2805

Hillsboro Community
Youth Choir
CALL FOR AUDITIONS

The Hillsboro Community Youth Choir (HCYC) is holding auditions to enter its 
Premiere Choir (grades 5-8) and Encore Choir (grades 9-12).

Auditions will take place Saturday, January 23rd in the Rogers Room at the 
Forest Grove City Library.
To schedule an audition, please contact Marian Cakarnis 503-357-2805
For more information visit www.hillsborocommunityyouthchoir.org or contact 
Cindy Uecker, Artistic Director at 503-441-1357 or hcychoir at live.com
Auditions are not required for participation in the Prelude Choir, HCYC's 
preparatory ensemble for grades 2 to 4.

The Hillsboro Community Youth Choir (HCYC) is a non-profit
choir committed to promoting excellence in choral music and is
dedicated to enriching the lives of youth by instilling a life-long
love of music through performance and education.

Auditions
Auditions are a good way for both singer and director to get to know each 
other, and the director to place each singer in the appropriate choir. 
During the audition Mrs. Uecker will interview each singer and then listen 
to each singer match pitches, sing their full range, sing a simple song, and 
sight-read. No prepared song is necessary, and both beginning and 
experienced singers are welcome.

Commitment
Each member's voice is needed to achieve the full choral sound of the choir 
and will need to attend all rehearsals.  We expect each member to arrive on 
time.  Performances for the year are scheduled in September and any 
conflicts should be coordinated with the artistic director as early as 
possible.

Tuition
Prelude choir (grades 2-4): tuition for January thru May is $100.  Full year 
tuition from Sept-May is $150.
Premiere choir (grades 5-8): tuition for January thru May $200.  Full year 
tuition from Sept-May is $300.
Encore choir (grades 9-12): tuition for January thru May $200.  Full year 
tuition from Sept-May is $300.
Since it is the goal of the Board of Directors of the Hillsboro Community 
Youth Choir (HCYC) to include all eligible singers, regardless of financial 
means, financial assistance may be available.

Rehearsals
Prelude choir (grades 2-4): Wednesday afternoons 3:45-4:45, September 
through May, at Lincoln Street Elementary School in Hillsboro, 801 N.E. 
Lincoln St.
Premiere choir (grades 5-8): Wednesday afternoons 4:00-5:30, September 
through May, at Liberty High School in Hillsboro, 21945 NW Wagon Way, north 
of Highway 26 at Cornelius Pass Road.
Encore choir (grades 9-12): Wednesday afternoons 5:15-6:30, September 
through May, at Liberty High School in Hillsboro, 21945 NW Wagon Way, north 
of Highway 26 at Cornelius Pass Road.

Performances and attire
Performances are planned in September, including the Winter & Spring 
concerts, Christmas at the Grotto and a number of other local venues. 
Occasionally an opportunity will present itself during the year in which we 
will want to perform.  Tickets will be sold for most of the performances. 
Each choir, Prelude, Premiere & Encore, has dress requirements.  Members of 
the Prelude and Premiere choir are provided a Polo shirt and the singer is 
expected to provide black dress slacks or skirt, black dress shoes and black 
socks/tights.  Choir dress may change in the future.

Transportation
Arranging for transportation to rehearsals and performances is the 
responsibility of the student/parents.  The choir currently has a few 
students from the Forest Grove and Banks area and carpooling may be 
possible.

Volunteers
As any other non-profit organization, the HCYC is dependent upon its 
volunteers.  We would hope and expect that each singer's family can 
contribute with the many activities needed for the organization's success.



From phoenixacup at gmail.com  Thu Jan 21 14:00:22 2010
From: phoenixacup at gmail.com (Jane Burch-Pesses)
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2010 14:00:22 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] An interesting view on 66 and 67 . . .
In-Reply-To: <4B58B9D7.9010100@jurislex.com>
References: <4B58B9D7.9010100@jurislex.com>
Message-ID: <d6eeab3d1001211400m1a030b80w3dbf26d64e8b0a67@mail.gmail.com>

Thanks for posting that, Bob.  Even without the charts it is an excellent
article.

BTW, I went to the "key communicators" lunch at the school district
yesterday and the Superintendent said that the school staff gave up step
increases for this year, accepted only half of their contracted COLA and had
furlough days in order to avoid firing anyone.

Without 66 & 67 the situation will be grim next year because there will be
no federal stimulus funds (some of which went to the schools to avoid
layoffs), and there are no more reserves (all spent this year).  Without 66
& 67 the schools will be forced to layoff staff (in a state with a way above
average student:teacher ratio already) and cutting days from the school year
(in a state that has one of the shortest school years already).

Jane B-P

On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 12:32 PM, Bob Browning <rab at jurislex.com> wrote:

>  The Register-Guard   *http://www.registerguard.com/* GUEST VIEWPOINT:
> Weighing measures 66 and 67<http://www.registerguard.com/csp/cms/sites/web/opinion/24326951-47/taxes-oregon-public-income-services.csp>
>
> By William Jaeger
>
> For The Register-Guard
>
> Posted to Web: *Monday*, *Jan 11, 2010 11:41AM*
> Appeared in print: *Sunday*, *Jan 10, 2010, page G4*
>
> Although some might have you believe otherwise, the economics behind
> Measures 66 and 67 ?? the tax referenda that Oregonians will be deciding
> over the next two weeks ? actually are not that complicated. The main issues
> can be framed as a benefit-cost analysis, where public services are the
> benefits and taxes are the costs.
>
> The economic question is equally simple, and perhaps more to the point: Do
> the measures? benefits outweigh their costs?
>
> The answer depends in part on how Oregon?s taxes and public services
> compare to those of other states. Because Oregon competes with peers around
> the country in a variety of ways to attract and retain businesses and to
> sell its products around the world, we need to know whether Oregon taxes and
> public services are high or low compared to those in other states.
>
> Let?s start with taxes.
>
> Oregon taxes as a share of personal income have been significantly below
> the national average for many years, and the gap has widened since the 1990s
> (see chart).
>
> The most recent data available show Oregon?s state taxes at 5 percent of
> personal income, compared to a national average of 6 percent. When state and
> local taxes are combined, the relationship is about the same: Oregon?s
> ranking is 44th out of 50 states in state taxes; 43rd in state and local
> taxes (which includes property taxes).
>
> You may hear that taxes have gone up by tens of billions of dollars in
> Oregon over the past few years. But this tells us little without adjusting
> for inflation, increasing population or economic growth.
>
> The picture also would be misleading if we add fees to taxes or look at
> total state spending rather than taxes. Oregon has relatively high fees in
> some categories such as seaports, parks and recreation. But that is because,
> unlike most states, Oregon has important international seaports, and some of
> the best recreational opportunities in the country. A large fraction of
> these fees are paid by non-Oregonians, so they generate revenue without
> adding to the ?tax burden? of residents.
>
> What about business taxes?
>
> Businesses pay taxes in a variety of ways, including business property
> taxes, corporate income taxes, unemployment insurance taxes and individual
> income taxes paid by non-corporate businesses. In 2008, the international
> consulting firm Ernst & Young estimated state-level business taxes (as a
> share of state gross domestic product) and government expenditures
> benefiting businesses for all 50 states. The firm found that Oregon ranks
> dead last: the lowest net business taxes in the country.
>
> Let?s turn to public services, where education is the largest budget
> category. Since the 1970s, Oregon has fallen from mid-range to a dismal 49th
> out of 50 states in terms of average teacher-student ratio (see chart).
> Oregon also has the second-shortest school year in the country.
>
> Salaries and benefits at Oregon?s universities are as much as 17 percent
> below the national average, making it much harder to attract and retain the
> best teachers and researchers. Tuition and fees at Oregon?s public two-year
> colleges are 29 percent higher than the national average.
>
> Have these trends in Oregon?s educational system affected Oregon?s labor
> force? Oregon has seen a decline in the number of college educated
> residents: A larger fraction of older Oregonians (ages 55 to 64) have
> bachelor?s degrees than do younger Oregonians (ages 25 to 34). The trend
> occurs at a time when the nation and the world are headed in the other
> direction.
>
> But are Oregon?s public education funds spent efficiently? According to the
> U.S. Department of Education, Oregon spends 70 percent of education funds on
> instruction or student services, comparable to the national average of 71
> percent. A recent Rutgers University study shows that 11 out of 12
> categories of private schools had average expenditures per pupil that were
> similar to or higher than public schools.
>
> With this background, let?s look at Measures 66 and 67. Measure 66 raises
> personal income taxes on high-income earners, those earning $125,000
> individually or $250,000 per household. Measure 67 raises corporate income
> taxes by $140 per year for most partnerships and corporations; for
> C-corporations with in-state sales above $500,000, the tax increase
> initially amounts to about 0.1 percent of gross sales.
>
> The third chart shows Oregon?s tax burden by income group, and how that
> burden would change with passage of these two measures. High-income groups
> would see their taxes rise on average by a small fraction. However, they
> still would pay a smaller share of their income in state and local taxes
> than would middle- or low-income households. Thus, Oregon?s tax system still
> would be regressive overall.
>
> Let?s look at the effect of these tax measures in the short run. President
> Obama has said, ?The last thing you want to do in the middle of a recession
> is raise taxes.? That?s because nationally, Congress can pay for public
> services by borrowing against future taxes. In Oregon, deficit financing is
> not allowed, so the choice is between cutting public services and raising
> taxes.
>
> In this situation, most research clearly shows that raising taxes on
> high-income families will be less harmful to a state?s economy than reduced
> public services. So in a world of two bad choices, raising taxes on
> high-income households is ?less bad? than further cuts to public services.
> It also is more equitable, since many of these public services support the
> less fortunate in our communities.
>
> Now, let?s consider benefits versus costs in the long run.
>
> All tax increases represent a cost to the economy, but even with these two
> tax increases, Oregon still would have a lower level of taxes than most
> other states. It is unlikely that these modest tax increases would
> discourage business owners, workers and other professionals from staying in
> or coming to Oregon, since most other states? taxes are higher.
>
> By contrast, the evidence of Oregon?s declining public services, especially
> education, easily could discourage entrepreneurs and professionals from
> coming or staying. Business owners have families, and they have employees
> and associates with families who will want to know whether the schools are
> good and the streets are safe.
>
> There is a wealth of economics literature on this topic ? dozens of
> national studies that have looked at state and local taxes, scouring the
> data for evidence of how to maximize benefits at the minimum cost. One
> recent summary of those studies concludes that ?there is little evidence
> that state and local tax cuts ? when paid for by reducing public services ?
> stimulate economic activity and create jobs,? and that ?increases in taxes,
> when used to expand the quantity and quality of public services, can promote
> economic development and employment growth.?
>
> Indeed, the long-term harm of having a labor force that is increasingly
> ill-equipped to compete in a global economy represents an unsustainable path
> for Oregon. Businesses can, and do, hire well-trained employees from outside
> Oregon, however. Past studies have shown that newcomers to Oregon have more
> education than current residents, and as a result take the highest-?paying
> jobs. So it may be that some businesses do not feel a need to pay to better
> educate Oregonians: They can hire workers with good educations from out of
> state.
>
> Explaining economic information and interpreting economic analysis for the
> general public is a challenging part of my job as an Oregon State University
> professor and Extension Service policy specialist. Helping Oregonians
> understand objective economic information is made more difficult, however,
> when misinformation is labeled as economics.
>
> Professional standards in our field include a peer review process for
> quality control, and the backing of a well-established research institute,
> university or respected consulting firm. Research results always are made
> transparent, and data and methods are made available freely to other
> researchers who might want to examine them in detail.
>
> Claims that 70,000 jobs will be lost due to the ?job killing taxes?
> represented by Measures 66 and 67 are not based on estimates that conform to
> these standards of the economics profession. These estimates were not
> subjected to peer review ? at least not voluntarily. When examined by
> nationally recognized experts on state and local public finance at the
> Brookings Institution, the result was a scathing report concluding that the
> analyses were ?without merit.?
>
> The economists behind these job-killing estimates have failed to fully
> explain their methods. Indeed, months after presenting to voters their
> estimate of 70,000 lost jobs, they are now backtracking on these
> ?guesstimates.? They recently substituted a new paper that purports to come
> to the same conclusions but using completely new data and different
> statistical methods. However, they have refused to make their new data and
> new methods available to other economists or the public.
>
> In addition, these economists have misrepresented the conclusions of
> scholarly publications and institutions (including statements in the Oregon
> Voters? Pamphlet). Perhaps most tellingly, none of these economists is
> affiliated for purposes of this analysis with an institution with a
> reputation for unbiased research.
>
> Voters should understand that there is no exact way to estimate the
> long-term effects of changes in taxes and public services on jobs and
> economic growth. The evidence from 30 years of economic research, however,
> reinforces common sense: When your taxes and public services are among the
> lowest in the country, the benefits from improving poor public services ?
> especially education ? are likely to outweigh the costs of modest increases
> in taxes.
> ------------------------------
>
> THE MEASURES AT A GLANCE
>
> Measure 66: Raises the income tax rate on single filers? taxable income
> above $125,000 and on joint filers? taxable income above $250,000.
>
> Measure 67: Replaces the current corporate minimum tax of $10 a year with a
> tiered rate of between $150 and $100,000 a year. It also would temporarily
> increase the corporate tax rate for smaller businesses and permanently for
> those with profits exceeding $10 million.
>
> Copyright ? 2010 ? The Register-Guard, Eugene, Oregon, USA
>  --
>
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>
>


-- 
Phoenix Acupuncture and Chinese Medicine
Home of the TAO (Team Against Obesity)
www.phoenix-acupuncture.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 24675 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : /pipermail/attachments/20100121/a85bc77a/attachment.jpe 

From g-g-steele at comcast.net  Thu Jan 21 14:15:50 2010
From: g-g-steele at comcast.net (Geri)
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2010 14:15:50 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] An interesting view on 66 and 67 . . .
References: <4B58B9D7.9010100@jurislex.com>
Message-ID: <0C0DF393E2644329949EE3FF67AD8B39@gerianehzkfhvy>

Good article ~ Thank you, Bob!

Geri

----- Original Message ----- 
From: Bob Browning 
To: Grovenet 
Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2010 12:32 PM
Subject: [Grovenet] An interesting view on 66 and 67 . . .


The Register-Guard   http://www.registerguard.com/ 
GUEST VIEWPOINT: Weighing measures 66 and 67
By William Jaeger
For The Register-Guard
Posted to Web: Monday, Jan 11, 2010 11:41AM 
Appeared in print: Sunday, Jan 10, 2010, page G4 
Although some might have you believe otherwise, the economics behind Measures 66 and 67 ?- the tax referenda that Oregonians will be deciding over the next two weeks - actually are not that complicated. The main issues can be framed as a benefit-cost analysis, where public services are the benefits and taxes are the costs.
The economic question is equally simple, and perhaps more to the point: Do the measures' benefits outweigh their costs?
The answer depends in part on how Oregon's taxes and public services compare to those of other states. Because Oregon competes with peers around the country in a variety of ways to attract and retain businesses and to sell its products around the world, we need to know whether Oregon taxes and public services are high or low compared to those in other states.
Let's start with taxes.
Oregon taxes as a share of personal income have been significantly below the national average for many years, and the gap has widened since the 1990s (see chart).
The most recent data available show Oregon's state taxes at 5 percent of personal income, compared to a national average of 6 percent. When state and local taxes are combined, the relationship is about the same: Oregon's ranking is 44th out of 50 states in state taxes; 43rd in state and local taxes (which includes property taxes).
You may hear that taxes have gone up by tens of billions of dollars in Oregon over the past few years. But this tells us little without adjusting for inflation, increasing population or economic growth.
The picture also would be misleading if we add fees to taxes or look at total state spending rather than taxes. Oregon has relatively high fees in some categories such as seaports, parks and recreation. But that is because, unlike most states, Oregon has important international seaports, and some of the best recreational opportunities in the country. A large fraction of these fees are paid by non-Oregonians, so they generate revenue without adding to the "tax burden" of residents.
What about business taxes?
Businesses pay taxes in a variety of ways, including business property taxes, corporate income taxes, unemployment insurance taxes and individual income taxes paid by non-corporate businesses. In 2008, the international consulting firm Ernst & Young estimated state-level business taxes (as a share of state gross domestic product) and government expenditures benefiting businesses for all 50 states. The firm found that Oregon ranks dead last: the lowest net business taxes in the country.
Let's turn to public services, where education is the largest budget category. Since the 1970s, Oregon has fallen from mid-range to a dismal 49th out of 50 states in terms of average teacher-student ratio (see chart). Oregon also has the second-shortest school year in the country.
Salaries and benefits at Oregon's universities are as much as 17 percent below the national average, making it much harder to attract and retain the best teachers and researchers. Tuition and fees at Oregon's public two-year colleges are 29 percent higher than the national average.
Have these trends in Oregon's educational system affected Oregon's labor force? Oregon has seen a decline in the number of college educated residents: A larger fraction of older Oregonians (ages 55 to 64) have bachelor's degrees than do younger Oregonians (ages 25 to 34). The trend occurs at a time when the nation and the world are headed in the other direction.
But are Oregon's public education funds spent efficiently? According to the U.S. Department of Education, Oregon spends 70 percent of education funds on instruction or student services, comparable to the national average of 71 percent. A recent Rutgers University study shows that 11 out of 12 categories of private schools had average expenditures per pupil that were similar to or higher than public schools.
With this background, let's look at Measures 66 and 67. Measure 66 raises personal income taxes on high-income earners, those earning $125,000 individually or $250,000 per household. Measure 67 raises corporate income taxes by $140 per year for most partnerships and corporations; for C-corporations with in-state sales above $500,000, the tax increase initially amounts to about 0.1 percent of gross sales.
The third chart shows Oregon's tax burden by income group, and how that burden would change with passage of these two measures. High-income groups would see their taxes rise on average by a small fraction. However, they still would pay a smaller share of their income in state and local taxes than would middle- or low-income households. Thus, Oregon's tax system still would be regressive overall.
Let's look at the effect of these tax measures in the short run. President Obama has said, "The last thing you want to do in the middle of a recession is raise taxes." That's because nationally, Congress can pay for public services by borrowing against future taxes. In Oregon, deficit financing is not allowed, so the choice is between cutting public services and raising taxes.
In this situation, most research clearly shows that raising taxes on high-income families will be less harmful to a state's economy than reduced public services. So in a world of two bad choices, raising taxes on high-income households is "less bad" than further cuts to public services. It also is more equitable, since many of these public services support the less fortunate in our communities.
Now, let's consider benefits versus costs in the long run.
All tax increases represent a cost to the economy, but even with these two tax increases, Oregon still would have a lower level of taxes than most other states. It is unlikely that these modest tax increases would discourage business owners, workers and other professionals from staying in or coming to Oregon, since most other states' taxes are higher.
By contrast, the evidence of Oregon's declining public services, especially education, easily could discourage entrepreneurs and professionals from coming or staying. Business owners have families, and they have employees and associates with families who will want to know whether the schools are good and the streets are safe.
There is a wealth of economics literature on this topic - dozens of national studies that have looked at state and local taxes, scouring the data for evidence of how to maximize benefits at the minimum cost. One recent summary of those studies concludes that "there is little evidence that state and local tax cuts - when paid for by reducing public services - stimulate economic activity and create jobs," and that "increases in taxes, when used to expand the quantity and quality of public services, can promote economic development and employment growth."
Indeed, the long-term harm of having a labor force that is increasingly ill-equipped to compete in a global economy represents an unsustainable path for Oregon. Businesses can, and do, hire well-trained employees from outside Oregon, however. Past studies have shown that newcomers to Oregon have more education than current residents, and as a result take the highest-?paying jobs. So it may be that some businesses do not feel a need to pay to better educate Oregonians: They can hire workers with good educations from out of state.
Explaining economic information and interpreting economic analysis for the general public is a challenging part of my job as an Oregon State University professor and Extension Service policy specialist. Helping Oregonians understand objective economic information is made more difficult, however, when misinformation is labeled as economics.
Professional standards in our field include a peer review process for quality control, and the backing of a well-established research institute, university or respected consulting firm. Research results always are made transparent, and data and methods are made available freely to other researchers who might want to examine them in detail.
Claims that 70,000 jobs will be lost due to the "job killing taxes" represented by Measures 66 and 67 are not based on estimates that conform to these standards of the economics profession. These estimates were not subjected to peer review - at least not voluntarily. When examined by nationally recognized experts on state and local public finance at the Brookings Institution, the result was a scathing report concluding that the analyses were "without merit."
The economists behind these job-killing estimates have failed to fully explain their methods. Indeed, months after presenting to voters their estimate of 70,000 lost jobs, they are now backtracking on these "guesstimates." They recently substituted a new paper that purports to come to the same conclusions but using completely new data and different statistical methods. However, they have refused to make their new data and new methods available to other economists or the public.
In addition, these economists have misrepresented the conclusions of scholarly publications and institutions (including statements in the Oregon Voters' Pamphlet). Perhaps most tellingly, none of these economists is affiliated for purposes of this analysis with an institution with a reputation for unbiased research.
Voters should understand that there is no exact way to estimate the long-term effects of changes in taxes and public services on jobs and economic growth. The evidence from 30 years of economic research, however, reinforces common sense: When your taxes and public services are among the lowest in the country, the benefits from improving poor public services - especially education - are likely to outweigh the costs of modest increases in taxes.



THE MEASURES AT A GLANCE
Measure 66: Raises the income tax rate on single filers' taxable income above $125,000 and on joint filers' taxable income above $250,000.
Measure 67: Replaces the current corporate minimum tax of $10 a year with a tiered rate of between $150 and $100,000 a year. It also would temporarily increase the corporate tax rate for smaller businesses and permanently for those with profits exceeding $10 million.
Copyright ? 2010 - The Register-Guard, Eugene, Oregon, USA
-- 




_______________________________________________
GroveNet mailing list
GroveNet at rdrop.com
http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet



From rab at jurislex.com  Thu Jan 21 14:34:57 2010
From: rab at jurislex.com (Bob Browning)
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2010 14:34:57 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] Latest tea party target: Its own convention - Yahoo! News
Message-ID: <4B58D691.9080704@jurislex.com>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/attachments/20100121/4ee9d5e9/attachment.html 

From allnutt at verizon.net  Thu Jan 21 16:41:12 2010
From: allnutt at verizon.net (Katie Allnutt)
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2010 16:41:12 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] Latest tea party target: Its own convention - Yahoo!
 News
In-Reply-To: <4B58D691.9080704@jurislex.com>
References: <4B58D691.9080704@jurislex.com>
Message-ID: <39E6EE81-2B9A-4D40-BDAC-5B4DBC9CDFC8@verizon.net>

Rolling on the floor laughing!

The guy says he wanted to talk to Palin about an invention...'Hemrick  
said the venture, an automotive safety device he was seeking to get  
mandated by state or federal governments'.

So he wants to make a profit by funneling money through his wife's  
email set up, and put ANOTHER regulation on car makers.

So rich in irony I'm sure it will raise everyone's cholesterol.

"Get the government out of our businesses unless I am the one making  
the money", doesn't fit well on a protest sign but you could grind up  
the words and fit them  in a tea bag.


Katie


On Jan 21, 2010, at 2:34 PM, Bob Browning wrote:

> The problem with anarchists is that they can't get along with  
> anybody ! ! !
>
> bob "who, me??" browning
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20100121/pl_politico/31816/print
>
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet


From osubuckeye59 at yahoo.com  Thu Jan 21 16:59:29 2010
From: osubuckeye59 at yahoo.com (Allen Warren)
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2010 16:59:29 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [Grovenet] An interesting view on 66 and 67 . . .
In-Reply-To: <4B58B9D7.9010100@jurislex.com>
References: <4B58B9D7.9010100@jurislex.com>
Message-ID: <630873.58629.qm@web112115.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>

As reported in the Oregonian this morning, http://www.oregonlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2010/01/public-employee_unions_flex_mu.html, there's a good reason "Public-employee unions have handily outspent business-backed foes in
the campaign over two tax-raising measures on Tuesday's ballot."

Here's another interesting view from the Wall Street Journal on our 2 tax measures: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704081704574652683989209884.html#printMode 

 
Allen Warren




________________________________
From: Bob Browning <rab at jurislex.com>
To: Grovenet <grovenet at rdrop.com>
Sent: Thu, January 21, 2010 12:32:23 PM
Subject: [Grovenet] An interesting view on 66 and 67 . . .


The Register-Guard   http://www.registerguard.com/
GUEST
VIEWPOINT: Weighing measures 66 and 67
By William Jaeger
For The Register-Guard
Posted to Web: Monday, Jan 11, 2010
11:41AM 
Appeared in print: Sunday, Jan 10, 2010, page G4 
Although some might have you
believe otherwise, the economics behind Measures 66 and 67 ?? the tax
referenda that Oregonians will be deciding over the next two weeks ?
actually are not that complicated. The main issues can be framed as a
benefit-cost analysis, where public services are the benefits and taxes
are the costs.
The economic question is equally
simple, and perhaps more to the point: Do the measures? benefits
outweigh their costs?
The answer depends in part on how
Oregon?s taxes and public services compare to those of other states.
Because Oregon competes with peers around the country in a variety of
ways to attract and retain businesses and to sell its products around
the world, we need to know whether Oregon taxes and public services are
high or low compared to those in other states.
Let?s start with taxes.
Oregon taxes as a share of personal
income have been significantly below the national average for many
years, and the gap has widened since the 1990s (see chart).
The most recent data available show
Oregon?s state taxes at 5 percent of personal income, compared to a
national average of 6 percent. When state and local taxes are combined,
the relationship is about the same: Oregon?s ranking is 44th out of 50
states in state taxes; 43rd in state and local taxes (which includes
property taxes).
You may hear that taxes have gone up by
tens of billions of dollars in Oregon over the past few years. But this
tells us little without adjusting for inflation, increasing population
or economic growth.
The picture also would be misleading if
we add fees to taxes or look at total state spending rather than taxes.
Oregon has relatively high fees in some categories such as seaports,
parks and recreation. But that is because, unlike most states, Oregon
has important international seaports, and some of the best recreational
opportunities in the country. A large fraction of these fees are paid
by non-Oregonians, so they generate revenue without adding to the ?tax
burden? of residents.
What about business taxes?
Businesses pay taxes in a variety of
ways, including business property taxes, corporate income taxes,
unemployment insurance taxes and individual income taxes paid by
non-corporate businesses. In 2008, the international consulting firm
Ernst & Young estimated state-level business taxes (as a share of
state gross domestic product) and government expenditures benefiting
businesses for all 50 states. The firm found that Oregon ranks dead
last: the lowest net business taxes in the country.
Let?s turn to public services, where
education is the largest budget category. Since the 1970s, Oregon has
fallen from mid-range to a dismal 49th out of 50 states in terms of
average teacher-student ratio (see chart). Oregon also has the
second-shortest school year in the country.
Salaries and benefits at Oregon?s
universities are as much as 17 percent below the national average,
making it much harder to attract and retain the best teachers and
researchers. Tuition and fees at Oregon?s public two-year colleges are
29 percent higher than the national average.
Have these trends in Oregon?s
educational system affected Oregon?s labor force? Oregon has seen a
decline in the number of college educated residents: A larger fraction
of older Oregonians (ages 55 to 64) have bachelor?s degrees than do
younger Oregonians (ages 25 to 34). The trend occurs at a time when the
nation and the world are headed in the other direction.
But are Oregon?s public education funds
spent efficiently? According to the U.S. Department of Education,
Oregon spends 70 percent of education funds on instruction or student
services, comparable to the national average of 71 percent. A recent
Rutgers University study shows that 11 out of 12 categories of private
schools had average expenditures per pupil that were similar to or
higher than public schools.
With this background, let?s look at
Measures 66 and 67. Measure 66 raises personal income taxes on
high-income earners, those earning $125,000 individually or $250,000
per household. Measure 67 raises corporate income taxes by $140 per
year for most partnerships and corporations; for C-corporations with
in-state sales above $500,000, the tax increase initially amounts to
about 0.1 percent of gross sales.
The third chart shows Oregon?s tax
burden by income group, and how that burden would change with passage
of these two measures. High-income groups would see their taxes rise on
average by a small fraction. However, they still would pay a smaller
share of their income in state and local taxes than would middle- or
low-income households. Thus, Oregon?s tax system still would be
regressive overall.
Let?s look at the effect of these tax
measures in the short run. President Obama has said, ?The last thing
you want to do in the middle of a recession is raise taxes.? That?s
because nationally, Congress can pay for public services by borrowing
against future taxes. In Oregon, deficit financing is not allowed, so
the choice is between cutting public services and raising taxes.
In this situation, most research
clearly shows that raising taxes on high-income families will be less
harmful to a state?s economy than reduced public services. So in a
world of two bad choices, raising taxes on high-income households is
?less bad? than further cuts to public services. It also is more
equitable, since many of these public services support the less
fortunate in our communities.
Now, let?s consider benefits versus
costs in the long run.
All tax increases represent a cost to
the economy, but even with these two tax increases, Oregon still would
have a lower level of taxes than most other states. It is unlikely that
these modest tax increases would discourage business owners, workers
and other professionals from staying in or coming to Oregon, since most
other states? taxes are higher.
By contrast, the evidence of Oregon?s
declining public services, especially education, easily could
discourage entrepreneurs and professionals from coming or staying.
Business owners have families, and they have employees and associates
with families who will want to know whether the schools are good and
the streets are safe.
There is a wealth of economics
literature on this topic ? dozens of national studies that have looked
at state and local taxes, scouring the data for evidence of how to
maximize benefits at the minimum cost. One recent summary of those
studies concludes that ?there is little evidence that state and local
tax cuts ? when paid for by reducing public services ? stimulate
economic activity and create jobs,? and that ?increases in taxes, when
used to expand the quantity and quality of public services, can promote
economic development and employment growth.?
Indeed, the long-term harm of having a
labor force that is increasingly ill-equipped to compete in a global
economy represents an unsustainable path for Oregon. Businesses can,
and do, hire well-trained employees from outside Oregon, however. Past
studies have shown that newcomers to Oregon have more education than
current residents, and as a result take the highest-?paying jobs. So it
may be that some businesses do not feel a need to pay to better educate
Oregonians: They can hire workers with good educations from out of
state.
Explaining economic information and
interpreting economic analysis for the general public is a challenging
part of my job as an Oregon State University professor and Extension
Service policy specialist. Helping Oregonians understand objective
economic information is made more difficult, however, when
misinformation is labeled as economics.
Professional standards in our field
include a peer review process for quality control, and the backing of a
well-established research institute, university or respected consulting
firm. Research results always are made transparent, and data and
methods are made available freely to other researchers who might want
to examine them in detail.
Claims that 70,000 jobs will be lost
due to the ?job killing taxes? represented by Measures 66 and 67 are
not based on estimates that conform to these standards of the economics
profession. These estimates were not subjected to peer review ? at
least not voluntarily. When examined by nationally recognized experts
on state and local public finance at the Brookings Institution, the
result was a scathing report concluding that the analyses were ?without
merit.?
The economists behind these job-killing
estimates have failed to fully explain their methods. Indeed, months
after presenting to voters their estimate of 70,000 lost jobs, they are
now backtracking on these ?guesstimates.? They recently substituted a
new paper that purports to come to the same conclusions but using
completely new data and different statistical methods. However, they
have refused to make their new data and new methods available to other
economists or the public.
In addition, these economists have
misrepresented the conclusions of scholarly publications and
institutions (including statements in the Oregon Voters? Pamphlet).
Perhaps most tellingly, none of these economists is affiliated for
purposes of this analysis with an institution with a reputation for
unbiased research.
Voters should understand that there is
no exact way to estimate the long-term effects of changes in taxes and
public services on jobs and economic growth. The evidence from 30 years
of economic research, however, reinforces common sense: When your taxes
and public services are among the lowest in the country, the benefits
from improving poor public services ? especially education ? are likely
to outweigh the costs of modest increases in taxes.
________________________________
 
THE MEASURES AT A GLANCE
Measure 66: Raises
the income tax rate on single filers? taxable income above $125,000 and
on joint filers? taxable income above $250,000.
Measure 67: Replaces
the current corporate minimum tax of $10 a year with a tiered rate of
between $150 and $100,000 a year. It also would temporarily increase
the corporate tax rate for smaller businesses and permanently for those
with profits exceeding $10 million.
Copyright ? 2010 ? The Register-Guard, Eugene, Oregon, USA
-- 



      

From allnutt at verizon.net  Thu Jan 21 17:43:56 2010
From: allnutt at verizon.net (Katie Allnutt)
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2010 17:43:56 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] An interesting view on 66 and 67 . . .
In-Reply-To: <630873.58629.qm@web112115.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
References: <4B58B9D7.9010100@jurislex.com>
	<630873.58629.qm@web112115.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <6BF999DB-6607-4ED6-A74F-13B0ECF3B1D9@verizon.net>

Yep, and that good reason is they are the front line soldiers as the  
jobs are shipped over seas, the economy falls apart and people need  
help.
Their jobs are getting harder and they are taking furlough days  
(losing pay), postponing increases (read both sides, not just the  
sound bites) and they see the tragedies coming.

We have given corporations huge liability protections just for  
incorporating. We save them massive insurance costs by simply  
sheltering their assets in lawsuits. Our tax laws give them  
extraordinary loopholes to shelter income from taxes that regular  
people don't get.   And for good reasons - we support businesses by  
giving them a place to do business with courts that will protect  
their interests. All these measures are doing is trimming one  
loophole (tax on Oregon sales only - remember still no change to  
taxes on out of state sales which is a HUGE loophole that remains)  
and increasing the tiny minimum.  Did you know that before the great  
depression the minimum corp tax was $25? During the depression it was  
lowered to $10. If we were going to adjust it for inflation from its  
pre depression $25 it would be $375.  And if you read the fine print  
there are tons of protections for truly small businesses.

Katie



On Jan 21, 2010, at 4:59 PM, Allen Warren wrote:

> As reported in the Oregonian this morning, http:// 
> www.oregonlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2010/01/public- 
> employee_unions_flex_mu.html, there's a good reason "Public- 
> employee unions have handily outspent business-backed foes in
> the campaign over two tax-raising measures on Tuesday's ballot."
>
> Here's another interesting view from the Wall Street Journal on our  
> 2 tax measures: http://online.wsj.com/article/ 
> SB10001424052748704081704574652683989209884.html#printMode
>
>
> Allen Warren
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Bob Browning <rab at jurislex.com>
> To: Grovenet <grovenet at rdrop.com>
> Sent: Thu, January 21, 2010 12:32:23 PM
> Subject: [Grovenet] An interesting view on 66 and 67 . . .
>
>
> The Register-Guard   http://www.registerguard.com/
> GUEST
> VIEWPOINT: Weighing measures 66 and 67
> By William Jaeger
> For The Register-Guard
> Posted to Web: Monday, Jan 11, 2010
> 11:41AM
> Appeared in print: Sunday, Jan 10, 2010, page G4
> Although some might have you
> believe otherwise, the economics behind Measures 66 and 67 ? the tax
> referenda that Oregonians will be deciding over the next two weeks ?
> actually are not that complicated. The main issues can be framed as a
> benefit-cost analysis, where public services are the benefits and  
> taxes
> are the costs.
> The economic question is equally
> simple, and perhaps more to the point: Do the measures? benefits
> outweigh their costs?
> The answer depends in part on how
> Oregon?s taxes and public services compare to those of other states.
> Because Oregon competes with peers around the country in a variety of
> ways to attract and retain businesses and to sell its products around
> the world, we need to know whether Oregon taxes and public services  
> are
> high or low compared to those in other states.
> Let?s start with taxes.
> Oregon taxes as a share of personal
> income have been significantly below the national average for many
> years, and the gap has widened since the 1990s (see chart).
> The most recent data available show
> Oregon?s state taxes at 5 percent of personal income, compared to a
> national average of 6 percent. When state and local taxes are  
> combined,
> the relationship is about the same: Oregon?s ranking is 44th out of 50
> states in state taxes; 43rd in state and local taxes (which includes
> property taxes).
> You may hear that taxes have gone up by
> tens of billions of dollars in Oregon over the past few years. But  
> this
> tells us little without adjusting for inflation, increasing population
> or economic growth.
> The picture also would be misleading if
> we add fees to taxes or look at total state spending rather than  
> taxes.
> Oregon has relatively high fees in some categories such as seaports,
> parks and recreation. But that is because, unlike most states, Oregon
> has important international seaports, and some of the best  
> recreational
> opportunities in the country. A large fraction of these fees are paid
> by non-Oregonians, so they generate revenue without adding to the ?tax
> burden? of residents.
> What about business taxes?
> Businesses pay taxes in a variety of
> ways, including business property taxes, corporate income taxes,
> unemployment insurance taxes and individual income taxes paid by
> non-corporate businesses. In 2008, the international consulting firm
> Ernst & Young estimated state-level business taxes (as a share of
> state gross domestic product) and government expenditures benefiting
> businesses for all 50 states. The firm found that Oregon ranks dead
> last: the lowest net business taxes in the country.
> Let?s turn to public services, where
> education is the largest budget category. Since the 1970s, Oregon has
> fallen from mid-range to a dismal 49th out of 50 states in terms of
> average teacher-student ratio (see chart). Oregon also has the
> second-shortest school year in the country.
> Salaries and benefits at Oregon?s
> universities are as much as 17 percent below the national average,
> making it much harder to attract and retain the best teachers and
> researchers. Tuition and fees at Oregon?s public two-year colleges are
> 29 percent higher than the national average.
> Have these trends in Oregon?s
> educational system affected Oregon?s labor force? Oregon has seen a
> decline in the number of college educated residents: A larger fraction
> of older Oregonians (ages 55 to 64) have bachelor?s degrees than do
> younger Oregonians (ages 25 to 34). The trend occurs at a time when  
> the
> nation and the world are headed in the other direction.
> But are Oregon?s public education funds
> spent efficiently? According to the U.S. Department of Education,
> Oregon spends 70 percent of education funds on instruction or student
> services, comparable to the national average of 71 percent. A recent
> Rutgers University study shows that 11 out of 12 categories of private
> schools had average expenditures per pupil that were similar to or
> higher than public schools.
> With this background, let?s look at
> Measures 66 and 67. Measure 66 raises personal income taxes on
> high-income earners, those earning $125,000 individually or $250,000
> per household. Measure 67 raises corporate income taxes by $140 per
> year for most partnerships and corporations; for C-corporations with
> in-state sales above $500,000, the tax increase initially amounts to
> about 0.1 percent of gross sales.
> The third chart shows Oregon?s tax
> burden by income group, and how that burden would change with passage
> of these two measures. High-income groups would see their taxes  
> rise on
> average by a small fraction. However, they still would pay a smaller
> share of their income in state and local taxes than would middle- or
> low-income households. Thus, Oregon?s tax system still would be
> regressive overall.
> Let?s look at the effect of these tax
> measures in the short run. President Obama has said, ?The last thing
> you want to do in the middle of a recession is raise taxes.? That?s
> because nationally, Congress can pay for public services by borrowing
> against future taxes. In Oregon, deficit financing is not allowed, so
> the choice is between cutting public services and raising taxes.
> In this situation, most research
> clearly shows that raising taxes on high-income families will be less
> harmful to a state?s economy than reduced public services. So in a
> world of two bad choices, raising taxes on high-income households is
> ?less bad? than further cuts to public services. It also is more
> equitable, since many of these public services support the less
> fortunate in our communities.
> Now, let?s consider benefits versus
> costs in the long run.
> All tax increases represent a cost to
> the economy, but even with these two tax increases, Oregon still would
> have a lower level of taxes than most other states. It is unlikely  
> that
> these modest tax increases would discourage business owners, workers
> and other professionals from staying in or coming to Oregon, since  
> most
> other states? taxes are higher.
> By contrast, the evidence of Oregon?s
> declining public services, especially education, easily could
> discourage entrepreneurs and professionals from coming or staying.
> Business owners have families, and they have employees and associates
> with families who will want to know whether the schools are good and
> the streets are safe.
> There is a wealth of economics
> literature on this topic ? dozens of national studies that have looked
> at state and local taxes, scouring the data for evidence of how to
> maximize benefits at the minimum cost. One recent summary of those
> studies concludes that ?there is little evidence that state and local
> tax cuts ? when paid for by reducing public services ? stimulate
> economic activity and create jobs,? and that ?increases in taxes, when
> used to expand the quantity and quality of public services, can  
> promote
> economic development and employment growth.?
> Indeed, the long-term harm of having a
> labor force that is increasingly ill-equipped to compete in a global
> economy represents an unsustainable path for Oregon. Businesses can,
> and do, hire well-trained employees from outside Oregon, however. Past
> studies have shown that newcomers to Oregon have more education than
> current residents, and as a result take the highest- paying jobs.  
> So it
> may be that some businesses do not feel a need to pay to better  
> educate
> Oregonians: They can hire workers with good educations from out of
> state.
> Explaining economic information and
> interpreting economic analysis for the general public is a challenging
> part of my job as an Oregon State University professor and Extension
> Service policy specialist. Helping Oregonians understand objective
> economic information is made more difficult, however, when
> misinformation is labeled as economics.
> Professional standards in our field
> include a peer review process for quality control, and the backing  
> of a
> well-established research institute, university or respected  
> consulting
> firm. Research results always are made transparent, and data and
> methods are made available freely to other researchers who might want
> to examine them in detail.
> Claims that 70,000 jobs will be lost
> due to the ?job killing taxes? represented by Measures 66 and 67 are
> not based on estimates that conform to these standards of the  
> economics
> profession. These estimates were not subjected to peer review ? at
> least not voluntarily. When examined by nationally recognized experts
> on state and local public finance at the Brookings Institution, the
> result was a scathing report concluding that the analyses were  
> ?without
> merit.?
> The economists behind these job-killing
> estimates have failed to fully explain their methods. Indeed, months
> after presenting to voters their estimate of 70,000 lost jobs, they  
> are
> now backtracking on these ?guesstimates.? They recently substituted a
> new paper that purports to come to the same conclusions but using
> completely new data and different statistical methods. However, they
> have refused to make their new data and new methods available to other
> economists or the public.
> In addition, these economists have
> misrepresented the conclusions of scholarly publications and
> institutions (including statements in the Oregon Voters? Pamphlet).
> Perhaps most tellingly, none of these economists is affiliated for
> purposes of this analysis with an institution with a reputation for
> unbiased research.
> Voters should understand that there is
> no exact way to estimate the long-term effects of changes in taxes and
> public services on jobs and economic growth. The evidence from 30  
> years
> of economic research, however, reinforces common sense: When your  
> taxes
> and public services are among the lowest in the country, the benefits
> from improving poor public services ? especially education ? are  
> likely
> to outweigh the costs of modest increases in taxes.
> ________________________________
>
> THE MEASURES AT A GLANCE
> Measure 66: Raises
> the income tax rate on single filers? taxable income above $125,000  
> and
> on joint filers? taxable income above $250,000.
> Measure 67: Replaces
> the current corporate minimum tax of $10 a year with a tiered rate of
> between $150 and $100,000 a year. It also would temporarily increase
> the corporate tax rate for smaller businesses and permanently for  
> those
> with profits exceeding $10 million.
> Copyright ? 2010 ? The Register-Guard, Eugene, Oregon, USA
> -- 
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet




From nospam03 at comcast.net  Thu Jan 21 19:09:42 2010
From: nospam03 at comcast.net (Steve)
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2010 03:09:42 +0000
Subject: [Grovenet] An interesting view on 66 and 67 . . .
Message-ID: <214192201-1264129788-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-490807071-@bda284.bisx.prod.on.blackberry>

I'm just like everybody else. My mind is made up. You can't change it. 


From ocollaugh at comcast.net  Thu Jan 21 19:28:23 2010
From: ocollaugh at comcast.net (donkelly)
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2010 03:28:23 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: [Grovenet] An interesting view on 66 and 67 . . .
In-Reply-To: <214192201-1264129788-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-490807071-@bda284.bisx.prod.on.blackberry>
Message-ID: <1990473847.14186111264130903738.JavaMail.root@sz0024a.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net>

I wonder why the unions support 66 and 67. 

The risk of support seems to me that they would lose jobs....especially in the private sector.

donkelly

----- Original Message -----
From: Steve <nospam03 at comcast.net>
To: Forest Grove local interests list <grovenet at rdrop.com>
Sent: Fri, 22 Jan 2010 03:09:42 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: Re: [Grovenet] An interesting view on 66 and 67 . . .

I'm just like everybody else. My mind is made up. You can't change it. 



From allnutt at verizon.net  Thu Jan 21 21:48:47 2010
From: allnutt at verizon.net (Katie Allnutt)
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2010 21:48:47 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] An interesting view on 66 and 67 . . .
In-Reply-To: <214192201-1264129788-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-490807071-@bda284.bisx.prod.on.blackberry>
References: <214192201-1264129788-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-490807071-@bda284.bisx.prod.on.blackberry>
Message-ID: <B2A4BFEB-1C10-41B3-ABC8-D4518A89C36E@verizon.net>

And the beauty of having mail in elections is that you can vote as  
soon as you make up your mind, then ignore all the ads and flyers.
If you send in your ballot early, it also takes you off the phone  
lists so you don't get those pesky calls.

I actually feel sorry for my relatives who live in other states. They  
can't vote until the actual election day (and if they vote absentee  
the campaigns don't know it) so they get the phone calls and every  
interruption right up until the night before.

Hooray for the people of Oregon who banded together, worked on  
changing the election rules, and implemented the change to the  
benefit of all voters regardless of political party. (Of, by, and for  
themselves.)

Katie



On Jan 21, 2010, at 7:09 PM, Steve wrote:

> I'm just like everybody else. My mind is made up. You can't change it.
>
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet



From waltw at teleport.com  Thu Jan 21 22:32:55 2010
From: waltw at teleport.com (Walt Wentz)
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2010 22:32:55 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] An interesting view on 66 and 67 . . .
In-Reply-To: <1990473847.14186111264130903738.JavaMail.root@sz0024a.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net>
References: <1990473847.14186111264130903738.JavaMail.root@sz0024a.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net>
Message-ID: <43F45AD8-629B-41F9-8301-94338E5D7A0C@teleport.com>

Perhaps because they are working people, and see that they are paying  
a higher percentage of their income in taxes than the people they are  
working for.
Just how big is that risk of lost jobs? Is a company that pays maybe  
$650 in NEW taxes going to fire all its employees and move to one of  
the 47 other states that will still have HIGHER business taxes than  
Oregon?
As for job losses, we know damnwell that jobs will be lost if the  
measures DON'T pass. Only those jobs will be in education, public  
health services and public safety. But the public sector, of course,  
doesn't count, does it? After all, who's in the public? Just a bunch  
of unimportant working people.

On Jan 21, 2010, at 7:28 PM, donkelly wrote:

> I wonder why the unions support 66 and 67.
>
> The risk of support seems to me that they would lose  
> jobs....especially in the private sector.
>
> donkelly
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Steve <nospam03 at comcast.net>
> To: Forest Grove local interests list <grovenet at rdrop.com>
> Sent: Fri, 22 Jan 2010 03:09:42 +0000 (UTC)
> Subject: Re: [Grovenet] An interesting view on 66 and 67 . . .
>
> I'm just like everybody else. My mind is made up. You can't change it.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet



From ocollaugh at comcast.net  Thu Jan 21 23:13:01 2010
From: ocollaugh at comcast.net (donkelly)
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2010 07:13:01 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: [Grovenet] An interesting view on 66 and 67 . . .
In-Reply-To: <B2A4BFEB-1C10-41B3-ABC8-D4518A89C36E@verizon.net>
Message-ID: <285273026.14240281264144381033.JavaMail.root@sz0024a.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net>

Been voting by mail since I first received a ballot by mail. Now I don't even know where the precincts are<GRIN>

donkelly, Cornelius

----- Original Message -----
From: Katie Allnutt <allnutt at verizon.net>
To: nospam03 at comcast.net, Forest Grove local interests list <grovenet at rdrop.com>
Sent: Fri, 22 Jan 2010 05:48:47 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: Re: [Grovenet] An interesting view on 66 and 67 . . .

And the beauty of having mail in elections is that you can vote as  
soon as you make up your mind, then ignore all the ads and flyers.
If you send in your ballot early, it also takes you off the phone  
lists so you don't get those pesky calls.

I actually feel sorry for my relatives who live in other states. They  
can't vote until the actual election day (and if they vote absentee  
the campaigns don't know it) so they get the phone calls and every  
interruption right up until the night before.

Hooray for the people of Oregon who banded together, worked on  
changing the election rules, and implemented the change to the  
benefit of all voters regardless of political party. (Of, by, and for  
themselves.)

Katie



From khourym at verizon.net  Fri Jan 22 08:25:20 2010
From: khourym at verizon.net (Martha Khoury)
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2010 08:25:20 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] An interesting view on 66 and 67 . . .
In-Reply-To: <285273026.14240281264144381033.JavaMail.root@sz0024a.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net>
References: <285273026.14240281264144381033.JavaMail.root@sz0024a.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net>
Message-ID: <72BAB0E1-09D0-431A-9328-0DD80D319AB4@verizon.net>

Now if they would just be Reply mail so we didn't have to add a  
stamp.....(voting tax).
I don't see why the politicians get to send free mail, but it costs us  
to vote for them.

I am thankful for the drop box. Sure beats waiting in line to vote.

--Martha


On Jan 21, 2010, at 11:13 PM, donkelly wrote:

> Been voting by mail since I first received a ballot by mail. Now I  
> don't even know where the precincts are<GRIN>
>
> donkelly, Cornelius
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Katie Allnutt <allnutt at verizon.net>
> To: nospam03 at comcast.net, Forest Grove local interests list <grovenet at rdrop.com 
> >
> Sent: Fri, 22 Jan 2010 05:48:47 +0000 (UTC)
> Subject: Re: [Grovenet] An interesting view on 66 and 67 . . .
>
> And the beauty of having mail in elections is that you can vote as
> soon as you make up your mind, then ignore all the ads and flyers.
> If you send in your ballot early, it also takes you off the phone
> lists so you don't get those pesky calls.
>
> I actually feel sorry for my relatives who live in other states. They
> can't vote until the actual election day (and if they vote absentee
> the campaigns don't know it) so they get the phone calls and every
> interruption right up until the night before.
>
> Hooray for the people of Oregon who banded together, worked on
> changing the election rules, and implemented the change to the
> benefit of all voters regardless of political party. (Of, by, and for
> themselves.)
>
> Katie
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet



From redhead854 at msn.com  Fri Jan 22 08:33:14 2010
From: redhead854 at msn.com (Holly Di)
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2010 08:33:14 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] Wreck on 47 and B?
In-Reply-To: <72BAB0E1-09D0-431A-9328-0DD80D319AB4@verizon.net>
References: <285273026.14240281264144381033.JavaMail.root@sz0024a.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net>
	<72BAB0E1-09D0-431A-9328-0DD80D319AB4@verizon.net>
Message-ID: <BLU0-SMTP73C67E26A85D83F5B11F5587620@phx.gbl>

> Some family is going to need our prayers and support ,  I heard it's  
> a fatal accident

Holly


From admin at ronhowden.com  Fri Jan 22 08:40:01 2010
From: admin at ronhowden.com (Ron Howden)
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2010 08:40:01 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] An interesting view on 66 and 67 . . .
In-Reply-To: <72BAB0E1-09D0-431A-9328-0DD80D319AB4@verizon.net>
References: <285273026.14240281264144381033.JavaMail.root@sz0024a.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net>
	<72BAB0E1-09D0-431A-9328-0DD80D319AB4@verizon.net>
Message-ID: <000001ca9b81$8b7e5800$a27b0800$@com>

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com [mailto:grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com] On
Behalf Of Martha Khoury
Sent: Friday, January 22, 2010 8:25 AM
To: Forest Grove local interests list
Subject: Re: [Grovenet] An interesting view on 66 and 67 . . .

 

Now if they would just be Reply mail so we didn't have to add a  

stamp.....(voting tax).

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 

 

A stamp is a service charge to deliver your mail, it is not a tax.

If it was by Reply mail you would still be paying for it, just indirectly.

Ron

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

 

I don't see why the politicians get to send free mail, but it costs us  

to vote for them.

 

I am thankful for the drop box. Sure beats waiting in line to vote.

 

--Martha

 

 


From nospam03 at comcast.net  Fri Jan 22 08:41:32 2010
From: nospam03 at comcast.net (Steve)
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2010 16:41:32 +0000
Subject: [Grovenet] An interesting view on 66 and 67 . . .
In-Reply-To: <72BAB0E1-09D0-431A-9328-0DD80D319AB4@verizon.net>
References: <285273026.14240281264144381033.JavaMail.root@sz0024a.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net><72BAB0E1-09D0-431A-9328-0DD80D319AB4@verizon.net>
Message-ID: <1350219719-1264178499-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-83585619-@bda284.bisx.prod.on.blackberry>

We all need the exercise. Walk. 
-----Original Message-----
From: Martha Khoury <khourym at verizon.net>
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2010 08:25:20 
To: Forest Grove local interests list<grovenet at rdrop.com>
Subject: Re: [Grovenet] An interesting view on 66 and 67 . . .

Now if they would just be Reply mail so we didn't have to add a  
stamp.....(voting tax).
I don't see why the politicians get to send free mail, but it costs us  
to vote for them.

I am thankful for the drop box. Sure beats waiting in line to vote.

--Martha


On Jan 21, 2010, at 11:13 PM, donkelly wrote:

> Been voting by mail since I first received a ballot by mail. Now I  
> don't even know where the precincts are<GRIN>
>
> donkelly, Cornelius
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Katie Allnutt <allnutt at verizon.net>
> To: nospam03 at comcast.net, Forest Grove local interests list <grovenet at rdrop.com 
> >
> Sent: Fri, 22 Jan 2010 05:48:47 +0000 (UTC)
> Subject: Re: [Grovenet] An interesting view on 66 and 67 . . .
>
> And the beauty of having mail in elections is that you can vote as
> soon as you make up your mind, then ignore all the ads and flyers.
> If you send in your ballot early, it also takes you off the phone
> lists so you don't get those pesky calls.
>
> I actually feel sorry for my relatives who live in other states. They
> can't vote until the actual election day (and if they vote absentee
> the campaigns don't know it) so they get the phone calls and every
> interruption right up until the night before.
>
> Hooray for the people of Oregon who banded together, worked on
> changing the election rules, and implemented the change to the
> benefit of all voters regardless of political party. (Of, by, and for
> themselves.)
>
> Katie
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet


_______________________________________________
GroveNet mailing list
GroveNet at rdrop.com
http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet


From smithsmith at gmail.com  Fri Jan 22 08:55:38 2010
From: smithsmith at gmail.com (b Smith)
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2010 08:55:38 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] Wreck on 47 and B?
In-Reply-To: <BLU0-SMTP73C67E26A85D83F5B11F5587620@phx.gbl>
References: <285273026.14240281264144381033.JavaMail.root@sz0024a.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net>
	<72BAB0E1-09D0-431A-9328-0DD80D319AB4@verizon.net>
	<BLU0-SMTP73C67E26A85D83F5B11F5587620@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <7eaadfd11001220855i6c21544t3f304453cf846e09@mail.gmail.com>

I was heading in from Gaston and they had 47 closed  at Springhill Rd.
I thought maybe it was roadwork as it was Highway Dept - not police
directing traffic.

For a straight stretch of road - there are some horrible accidents.

So sad...

Barb

On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 8:33 AM, Holly Di <redhead854 at msn.com> wrote:

> > Some family is going to need our prayers and support ,  I heard it's
> > a fatal accident
>
> Holly
>
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>

From nospam03 at comcast.net  Fri Jan 22 08:57:22 2010
From: nospam03 at comcast.net (Steve)
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2010 16:57:22 +0000
Subject: [Grovenet] An interesting view on 66 and 67 . . .
In-Reply-To: <000001ca9b81$8b7e5800$a27b0800$@com>
References: <285273026.14240281264144381033.JavaMail.root@sz0024a.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net><72BAB0E1-09D0-431A-9328-0DD80D319AB4@verizon.net><000001ca9b81$8b7e5800$a27b0800$@com>
Message-ID: <1034403963-1264179449-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-2094446536-@bda284.bisx.prod.on.blackberry>

You have a constitutional argument there. 
Also the voting pamphlet. Requires that you have a certain level of reading. A voting test?
 How about they just come door to door and ask? That would require a residence. Is that against the rules?
-----Original Message-----
From: Ron Howden <admin at ronhowden.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2010 08:40:01 
To: 'Forest Grove local interests list'<grovenet at rdrop.com>
Subject: Re: [Grovenet] An interesting view on 66 and 67 . . .

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com [mailto:grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com] On
Behalf Of Martha Khoury
Sent: Friday, January 22, 2010 8:25 AM
To: Forest Grove local interests list
Subject: Re: [Grovenet] An interesting view on 66 and 67 . . .

 

Now if they would just be Reply mail so we didn't have to add a  

stamp.....(voting tax).

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 

 

A stamp is a service charge to deliver your mail, it is not a tax.

If it was by Reply mail you would still be paying for it, just indirectly.

Ron

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

 

I don't see why the politicians get to send free mail, but it costs us  

to vote for them.

 

I am thankful for the drop box. Sure beats waiting in line to vote.

 

--Martha

 

 

_______________________________________________
GroveNet mailing list
GroveNet at rdrop.com
http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet


From obrzl at verizon.net  Fri Jan 22 09:52:47 2010
From: obrzl at verizon.net (mark oberzil)
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2010 09:52:47 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [Grovenet] Wreck on 47 and B?
In-Reply-To: <7eaadfd11001220855i6c21544t3f304453cf846e09@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <518065.3098.qm@web84205.mail.re3.yahoo.com>

Not to detract from whatever tragedy has occurred, but the crosswalk at Dilley is a deadly joke, waiting for a punch line.
?
Try walking arcoss that crosswalk out there sometime.? I've?walked cautiously into the?traffic lane only to watch traffic cross over into the other, oncoming lane to keep from stopping, and there's about a quarter mile visibility there too.
Mark

--- On Fri, 1/22/10, b Smith <smithsmith at gmail.com> wrote:


From: b Smith <smithsmith at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Wreck on 47 and B?
To: "Forest Grove local interests list" <grovenet at rdrop.com>
Date: Friday, January 22, 2010, 4:55 PM


I was heading in from Gaston and they had 47 closed? at Springhill Rd.
I thought maybe it was roadwork as it was Highway Dept - not police
directing traffic.

For a straight stretch of road - there are some horrible accidents.

So sad...

Barb

On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 8:33 AM, Holly Di <redhead854 at msn.com> wrote:

> > Some family is going to need our prayers and support ,? I heard it's
> > a fatal accident
>
> Holly
>
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>
_______________________________________________
GroveNet mailing list
GroveNet at rdrop.com
http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet

From waltw at teleport.com  Fri Jan 22 10:09:50 2010
From: waltw at teleport.com (Walt Wentz)
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2010 10:09:50 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] Rescuing Reform
In-Reply-To: <4B58D691.9080704@jurislex.com>
References: <4B58D691.9080704@jurislex.com>
Message-ID: <CA4CA19B-6D2A-4DAD-AF66-79DF78467422@teleport.com>

Hello, all:

I just signed up to host a Emergency Rally for Health Care run by  
MoveOn.org Political Action.

President Obama and some Democrats in Congress are considering  
scaling back health care reform in the wake of the Massachusetts  
election.

So we're organizing Emergency Rallies for Health Care Reform to call  
on Congress to deliver the change we voted for in 2008 and pass a  
strong health care reform bill.

Host your own Emergency Rally for Health Care or sign up for an event  
near you.


You can sign up for the Emergency Rally for Health Care I'm hosting,  
or to host your own, at:
http://pol.moveon.org/event/healthemergency/100670

Here are the details of my event:
Keep Health Reform Alive
Front of Public Library, Forest Grove
Forest Grove Public Library
Forest Grove, OR 97116
Tuesday, 26 Jan 2010, , 12:00 PM

I hope you'll sign up.

Walt Wentz

From louise_rickard at hotmail.com  Fri Jan 22 14:08:51 2010
From: louise_rickard at hotmail.com (Lousie Rickard)
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2010 14:08:51 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] Wreck on 47 and B?
In-Reply-To: <BLU0-SMTP73C67E26A85D83F5B11F5587620@phx.gbl>
References: <285273026.14240281264144381033.JavaMail.root@sz0024a.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net><72BAB0E1-09D0-431A-9328-0DD80D319AB4@verizon.net>
	<BLU0-SMTP73C67E26A85D83F5B11F5587620@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <SNT124-DS1009D0A4B5D2795168BFA9FD620@phx.gbl>

MULTI-CAR CRASH SOUTH OF FOREST GROVE LEAVES ONE MAN DEAD 

On Friday morning January 22 at approximately 7:00 am Forest Grove Fire &
Rescue responded to a multi-car crash on SW Highway 47 near the B Street
intersection, approximately 2 miles south of the city of Forest Grove. When
firefighters arrived they found a total of four (4) cars involved and nine
(9) victims, including one fatality. Crews triaged the scene and discovered
that initially the accident involved a pickup towing a recreational trailer
and a small sedan in a t-bone type of impact. Those witnesses stated that
the deceased man was initially not involved and had stopped to render aid
when he was struck by another vehicle and killed. The small sedan that was
originally involved had significant damage to the passenger side of the
vehicle and the recreational trailer was also destroyed by the force of the
impact. 

 

Fire crews from Forest Grove (12), Cornelius (8), and Gaston (4) responded
to the crash, as well as four (4) Metro West ambulances, and one (1) Life
Flight Helicopter. Five (5) patients were transported to the Trauma Center
at Oregon Health Sciences University in Portland with serious injuries. Fire
crews were on scene for over an hour treating the injured victims and the
busy highway between Yamhill and Washington Counties remains closed at this
time. 

 

This type of accident where a good Samaritan bystander was struck by another
vehicle is the reason why fire crews will block roadways with emergency
vehicles while working car crash scenes. Please use caution when approaching
intersections and if you are coming into an accident scene slow down, stop,
and wait till you are told to pass through, even if firefighters or police
officers have not yet arrived. It is also important to stay in your vehicle
until you are sure that the roadway is controlled and safe, especially in
dark and rainy conditions like we had this morning.

 

-----Original Message-----
From: grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com [mailto:grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com] On
Behalf Of Holly Di
Sent: Friday, January 22, 2010 8:33 AM
To: Forest Grove local interests list
Cc: Forest Grove local interests list
Subject: [Grovenet] Wreck on 47 and B?

 

> Some family is going to need our prayers and support ,  I heard it's  

> a fatal accident

 

Holly

 

_______________________________________________

GroveNet mailing list

GroveNet at rdrop.com

http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet


From jbcoops at yahoo.com  Fri Jan 22 14:09:25 2010
From: jbcoops at yahoo.com (Jeff Cooper)
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2010 14:09:25 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [Grovenet] Wreck on 47 and B?
In-Reply-To: <518065.3098.qm@web84205.mail.re3.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <226120.46414.qm@web55006.mail.re4.yahoo.com>

Dilley should have the same setup as they do now in front of Goodwill and Safeway: flashing lights with motion sensors and a zebra crosswalk.

The same should be true at Yew street and Pacific.?? Last week a pedestrian was killed by a driver doing the limit (which is 40 there).? That intersection servicing 7-11, Prime Time as well as the mobile homes on the north side have always been a tragedy waiting to happen, as it now has.

My thoughts go out to all families involved.

--Jeff

--- On Fri, 1/22/10, mark oberzil <obrzl at verizon.net> wrote:
Not to detract from whatever tragedy has occurred, but the crosswalk at Dilley is a deadly joke, waiting for a punch line.
?
Try walking arcoss that crosswalk out there sometime.? I've?walked cautiously into the?traffic lane only to watch traffic cross over into the other, oncoming lane to keep from stopping, and there's about a quarter mile visibility there too.
Mark



      

From g-g-steele at comcast.net  Fri Jan 22 14:59:20 2010
From: g-g-steele at comcast.net (Geri)
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2010 14:59:20 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] Wreck on 47 and B?
References: <226120.46414.qm@web55006.mail.re4.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <883B6F6C250340A0869776BAE1220C49@gerianehzkfhvy>

Was so sorry to hear about this, and my thoughts go out to those involved, as well.

I agree with you Jeff on the issues about the areas you mentioned. It is not the first time a pedestrian death has occurred along there. And with Wal-Mart traffic added in the future, it would be great if things became much safer in that stretch...


Geri

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jeff Cooper" <jbcoops at yahoo.com>
To: "Forest Grove local interests list" <grovenet at rdrop.com>
Sent: Friday, January 22, 2010 2:09 PM
Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Wreck on 47 and B?


Dilley should have the same setup as they do now in front of Goodwill and Safeway: flashing lights with motion sensors and a zebra crosswalk.

The same should be true at Yew street and Pacific. Last week a pedestrian was killed by a driver doing the limit (which is 40 there). That intersection servicing 7-11, Prime Time as well as the mobile homes on the north side have always been a tragedy waiting to happen, as it now has.

My thoughts go out to all families involved.

--Jeff

--- On Fri, 1/22/10, mark oberzil <obrzl at verizon.net> wrote:
Not to detract from whatever tragedy has occurred, but the crosswalk at Dilley is a deadly joke, waiting for a punch line.

Try walking arcoss that crosswalk out there sometime. I've walked cautiously into the traffic lane only to watch traffic cross over into the other, oncoming lane to keep from stopping, and there's about a quarter mile visibility there too.
Mark



      
_______________________________________________
GroveNet mailing list
GroveNet at rdrop.com
http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet




From g-g-steele at comcast.net  Fri Jan 22 16:23:43 2010
From: g-g-steele at comcast.net (Geri)
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2010 16:23:43 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] FAXing...
References: <226120.46414.qm@web55006.mail.re4.yahoo.com>
	<883B6F6C250340A0869776BAE1220C49@gerianehzkfhvy>
Message-ID: <E74F77E5EE314C44BBFFD87A1CE6C5F8@gerianehzkfhvy>

Is there some place in F.G. where one can FAX (not set up to do it at home)?  If not, where is the closest place??

Geri



From osubuckeye59 at yahoo.com  Fri Jan 22 17:01:16 2010
From: osubuckeye59 at yahoo.com (Allen Warren)
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2010 17:01:16 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [Grovenet] FAXing...
In-Reply-To: <E74F77E5EE314C44BBFFD87A1CE6C5F8@gerianehzkfhvy>
References: <226120.46414.qm@web55006.mail.re4.yahoo.com>
	<883B6F6C250340A0869776BAE1220C49@gerianehzkfhvy>
	<E74F77E5EE314C44BBFFD87A1CE6C5F8@gerianehzkfhvy>
Message-ID: <451989.67803.qm@web112118.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>

Horton's Office Supply.  By the Bowling Alley.

 
Allen Warren




________________________________
From: Geri <g-g-steele at comcast.net>
To: Forest Grove local interests list <grovenet at rdrop.com>
Sent: Fri, January 22, 2010 4:23:43 PM
Subject: [Grovenet] FAXing...

Is there some place in F.G. where one can FAX (not set up to do it at home)?  If not, where is the closest place??

Geri


_______________________________________________
GroveNet mailing list
GroveNet at rdrop.com
http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet



      

From khourym at verizon.net  Fri Jan 22 17:09:41 2010
From: khourym at verizon.net (Martha Khoury)
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2010 17:09:41 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] FAXing...
In-Reply-To: <E74F77E5EE314C44BBFFD87A1CE6C5F8@gerianehzkfhvy>
References: <226120.46414.qm@web55006.mail.re4.yahoo.com>
	<883B6F6C250340A0869776BAE1220C49@gerianehzkfhvy>
	<E74F77E5EE314C44BBFFD87A1CE6C5F8@gerianehzkfhvy>
Message-ID: <77082B66-7A34-4D04-88AD-CD5B5E86CD6F@verizon.net>

The UPS Store. --MK


On Jan 22, 2010, at 4:23 PM, Geri wrote:

> Is there some place in F.G. where one can FAX (not set up to do it  
> at home)?  If not, where is the closest place??
>
> Geri
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet



From rab at jurislex.com  Fri Jan 22 17:35:10 2010
From: rab at jurislex.com (Bob Browning)
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2010 17:35:10 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] FAXing...
In-Reply-To: <77082B66-7A34-4D04-88AD-CD5B5E86CD6F@verizon.net>
References: <226120.46414.qm@web55006.mail.re4.yahoo.com>	<883B6F6C250340A0869776BAE1220C49@gerianehzkfhvy>	<E74F77E5EE314C44BBFFD87A1CE6C5F8@gerianehzkfhvy>
	<77082B66-7A34-4D04-88AD-CD5B5E86CD6F@verizon.net>
Message-ID: <4B5A524E.4070404@jurislex.com>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/attachments/20100122/2a5adda6/attachment.html 

From ocollaugh at comcast.net  Fri Jan 22 19:05:44 2010
From: ocollaugh at comcast.net (donkelly)
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 2010 03:05:44 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: [Grovenet] FAXing...
In-Reply-To: <4B5A524E.4070404@jurislex.com>
Message-ID: <2038497391.14586131264215944614.JavaMail.root@sz0024a.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net>

Kinko's corner 19th Ave and Adaire Cornelius
----- Original Message -----
From: Bob Browning <rab at jurislex.com>
To: Forest Grove local interests list <grovenet at rdrop.com>
Sent: Sat, 23 Jan 2010 01:35:10 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: Re: [Grovenet] FAXing...


<html>
<head>
  
</head>
<body>
<font size="+1">Unfortunately, the UPS store closed several weeks ago
with little or no notice to anyone, particularly to those who had
private postal boxes at the store.<br>
<br>
Bob<br>
</font>++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++<br>
Martha Khoury wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:77082B66-7A34-4D04-88AD-CD5B5E86CD6F at verizon.net">
  <pre>The UPS Store. --MK


On Jan 22, 2010, at 4:23 PM, Geri wrote:

  </pre>
  <blockquote>
    <pre>Is there some place in F.G. where one can FAX (not set up to do it  
at home)?  If not, where is the closest place??

Geri</pre>
  </blockquote>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>




From jo.david at verizon.net  Fri Jan 22 19:53:08 2010
From: jo.david at verizon.net (David Morelli)
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2010 19:53:08 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] Lights and safety  Was:  Wreck on 47 and B?
In-Reply-To: <226120.46414.qm@web55006.mail.re4.yahoo.com>
References: <226120.46414.qm@web55006.mail.re4.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <39892272-D1A5-4DCC-8833-9BF3EC04CE9A@verizon.net>

The Transportation System Plan is open for review.  The City's Annual Town Hall is supposed to have it available for comment.  I have been proposing a light a Yew/Adair and was told that ODOT doesn't like signals on their highways, so they don't want any signals on Yew.  There is supposed to be an alternative offered at the meeting that covers a variety of changes to the system, including lights at Yew Street, and changes to the Highway 47 / Tualatin Valley Highway intersection at Pacific/Quince.  I have proposed that 19th should continue as a one-way past Hwy 47 to increase safety and capacity, while improving traffic flow, pedestrian access and reducing vehicle wait.  The proposal includes reduced speeds on the South approach to the intersection so that we don't have 45 mph trucks ripping through the yellow light.  The traffic on 19th would be 25 mph in the proposal, because that works well with the signal timing, and the neighboring properties are residential.

There is a proposal on the table to put a traffic light at the Highway 47 and B Street intersection.  I have proposed that it be coordinated with a proposed light at Maple Street/Hwy 47, the proposed changes to Pacific, a proposed light at 24th/Hwy 47 and the existing light at Sunset Drive to improve the safety and crossing opportunities at Elm Street, Poplar Street, Martin Road and Porter Road.

With proper planning, a light at Dilley can be coordinated with a light at 'B' Street, so that there is no reduction in traffic capacity or travel speed, while providing improved opportunity for traffic to cross or merge with Hwy 47.  

David

On Jan 22, 2010, at 2:09 PM, Jeff Cooper wrote:

> Dilley should have the same setup as they do now in front of Goodwill and Safeway: flashing lights with motion sensors and a zebra crosswalk.
> 
> The same should be true at Yew street and Pacific.   Last week a pedestrian was killed by a driver doing the limit (which is 40 there).  That intersection servicing 7-11, Prime Time as well as the mobile homes on the north side have always been a tragedy waiting to happen, as it now has.
> 
> My thoughts go out to all families involved.
> 
> --Jeff
> 
> --- On Fri, 1/22/10, mark oberzil <obrzl at verizon.net> wrote:
> Not to detract from whatever tragedy has occurred, but the crosswalk at Dilley is a deadly joke, waiting for a punch line.
>  
> Try walking arcoss that crosswalk out there sometime.  I've walked cautiously into the traffic lane only to watch traffic cross over into the other, oncoming lane to keep from stopping, and there's about a quarter mile visibility there too.
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet




From kb-ent at comcast.net  Fri Jan 22 20:21:30 2010
From: kb-ent at comcast.net (K. Bingham)
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2010 20:21:30 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] FAXing...
In-Reply-To: <E74F77E5EE314C44BBFFD87A1CE6C5F8@gerianehzkfhvy>
References: <226120.46414.qm@web55006.mail.re4.yahoo.com>	<883B6F6C250340A0869776BAE1220C49@gerianehzkfhvy>
	<E74F77E5EE314C44BBFFD87A1CE6C5F8@gerianehzkfhvy>
Message-ID: <4B5A794A.1020401@comcast.net>

Fred Meyer does it for about a dollar a page and they are open later too.

Geri wrote:
> Is there some place in F.G. where one can FAX (not set up to do it at home)?  If not, where is the closest place??
>
> Geri
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>
>   


From g-g-steele at comcast.net  Fri Jan 22 22:14:29 2010
From: g-g-steele at comcast.net (Geri)
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2010 22:14:29 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] FAXing...
References: <226120.46414.qm@web55006.mail.re4.yahoo.com>	<883B6F6C250340A0869776BAE1220C49@gerianehzkfhvy>	<E74F77E5EE314C44BBFFD87A1CE6C5F8@gerianehzkfhvy><77082B66-7A34-4D04-88AD-CD5B5E86CD6F@verizon.net>
	<4B5A524E.4070404@jurislex.com>
Message-ID: <10E93547286348F4B881B50D4A46E3F2@gerianehzkfhvy>

What! No notice to private postal box folks? That sounds weird...

Anyway, THANK YOU to everyone who responded regarding getting something FAXed, and thank you very much, Bob, for your kind offer!  I didn't have to rush to get it done today, so will be able to use these suggestions tomorrow or Mon.  Had been going to Kinko's in Cornelius, but was wondering if F.G. had closer places to do it, now that the UPS store closed...  

Appreciate the responses!

Geri


----- Original Message ----- 
From: Bob Browning 
To: Forest Grove local interests list 
Sent: Friday, January 22, 2010 5:35 PM
Subject: Re: [Grovenet] FAXing...


Unfortunately, the UPS store closed several weeks ago with little or no notice to anyone, particularly to those who had private postal boxes at the store.

Bob
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Martha Khoury wrote: 
The UPS Store. --MK


On Jan 22, 2010, at 4:23 PM, Geri wrote:

  Is there some place in F.G. where one can FAX (not set up to do it  
at home)?  If not, where is the closest place??

Geri



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


_______________________________________________
GroveNet mailing list
GroveNet at rdrop.com
http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet

From jamsm at aol.com  Sat Jan 23 07:12:55 2010
From: jamsm at aol.com (jamsm at aol.com)
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 2010 10:12:55 EST
Subject: [Grovenet] FAXing...
Message-ID: <2350b.73f8de8a.388c6bf7@aol.com>

For any one without a Fax machine
If your PC has a 'modem' for telephone  dial-up Internet access THEN  WOW - 
guess what - You probably have a FAX  machine already built into your PC !

If document to be faxed is originates on PC  then it is very easy to  Fax.
If you have a scanner for externally (not already in PC) created  documents 
- again they are easily faxed.
 
How to (quicky/short directions):
Connect the PC to telephone outlet  (remove cable if fax  device is not 
configured)
Look under 'Control Panel'  > 'Printers and Faxes' for configuring/adding 
the fax device
Once the Fax device is added it must be configured for use before using  !  
Open Fax software
 
If you configure the fax device properly you can have it connected all the  
time and it will automatically receive faxes without any interference with  
regular phone calls or messages being left.
 
I used to always use the PC Fax device before getting my  all-in-one printer
 
Need more help to do this, contact me.
 
The Grouch
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------
 
In a message dated 1/23/2010 1:14:21 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,  
g-g-steele at comcast.net writes:

What! No  notice to private postal box folks? That sounds weird...

Anyway, THANK  YOU to everyone who responded regarding getting something 
Faxed, and thank you  very much, Bob, for your kind offer!  I didn't have to 
rush to get it  done today, so will be able to use these suggestions tomorrow 
or Mon.   Had been going to Kinko's in Cornelius, but was wondering if F.G. 
had closer  places to do it, now that the UPS store closed...  

Appreciate the  responses!

Geri


----- Original Message ----- 
From: Bob  Browning 
To: Forest Grove local interests list 
Sent: Friday, January  22, 2010 5:35 PM
Subject: Re: [Grovenet]  FAXing...


Unfortunately, the UPS store closed several weeks ago  with little or no 
notice to anyone, particularly to those who had private  postal boxes at the  
store.

Bob
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Martha Khoury wrote:  
The UPS Store. --MK


On Jan 22, 2010, at 4:23 PM, Geri  wrote:

Is there some place in F.G. where one can FAX (not set up  to do it  
at home)?  If not, where is the closest  place??

Geri



----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----


_______________________________________________
GroveNet  mailing  list
GroveNet at rdrop.com
http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
_______________________________________________
GroveNet  mailing  list
GroveNet at rdrop.com
http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet


From jamsm at aol.com  Sat Jan 23 07:49:20 2010
From: jamsm at aol.com (jamsm at aol.com)
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 2010 10:49:20 EST
Subject: [Grovenet] FAXing... How to on PC
Message-ID: <23e84.5403ede1.388c7480@aol.com>

Detailed directions for configuring fax device
 
For XP  (not sure if Home supports this)
_http://support.microsoft.com/kb/306550_ 
(http://support.microsoft.com/kb/306550)    
 
For Vista (business, ultimate and enterprise)
_http://windows.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-vista/Set-up-your-computer-to-se
nd-and-receive-faxes_ 
(http://windows.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-vista/Set-up-your-computer-to-send-and-receive-faxes) 
 
For Win7
probably same as Vista

overview
_http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc725953.aspx_ 
(http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc725953.aspx) 
 
 
Cheers 
The Grouch
 
 
In a message dated 1/23/2010 10:13:59 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,  
jamsm at aol.com writes:

For any  one without a Fax machine
If your PC has a 'modem' for telephone   dial-up Internet access THEN  WOW 
- 
guess what - You probably have a  FAX  machine already built into your PC !

If document to be faxed  is originates on PC  then it is very easy to  Fax.
If you have a  scanner for externally (not already in PC) created  
documents 
- again  they are easily faxed.

How to (quicky/short directions):
Connect the  PC to telephone outlet  (remove cable if fax  device is not  
configured)
Look under 'Control Panel'  > 'Printers and Faxes'  for configuring/adding 
the fax device
Once the Fax device is added it  must be configured for use before using  ! 
 
Open Fax  software

If you configure the fax device properly you can have it  connected all the 
 
time and it will automatically receive faxes  without any interference with 
 
regular phone calls or messages being  left.

I used to always use the PC Fax device before getting my   all-in-one 
printer

Need more help to do this, contact me.

The  Grouch



From oldredwagon at verizon.net  Sat Jan 23 09:51:40 2010
From: oldredwagon at verizon.net (Marian Cakarnis)
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 2010 09:51:40 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] An interesting view on 66 and 67 . . .
In-Reply-To: <6BF999DB-6607-4ED6-A74F-13B0ECF3B1D9@verizon.net>
References: <4B58B9D7.9010100@jurislex.com>
	<630873.58629.qm@web112115.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<6BF999DB-6607-4ED6-A74F-13B0ECF3B1D9@verizon.net>
Message-ID: <BED3363A12A84F58996A83927A3F5F4D@JeffVAIO>

I'm still thinking about all the implications of the passing of 67 and 
wonder about the sales tax 'feature'.  As I understand it, companies with 
sales in excess of 500K in Oregon will be charged a tax - essentially a 
sales tax.  I've always been an opponent to the sales tax, because I can't 
fathom how much it will cost to set up a new infrastructure to collect these 
taxes from consumers.

Since measure 67 is essentially creating a sales tax, that will be collected 
through our existing infrastructure, it seems far more efficient and 
cost-effective.  But, will this so-called sales tax also be collected from 
out-of-state companies with sales in Oregon in excess of 500K?

Probably a stupid question, but I wanted to understand it before casting my 
vote.

Marian


--------------------------------------------------
From: "Katie Allnutt" <allnutt at verizon.net>
Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2010 5:43 PM
To: "Forest Grove local interests list" <grovenet at rdrop.com>
Subject: Re: [Grovenet] An interesting view on 66 and 67 . . .

> Yep, and that good reason is they are the front line soldiers as the
> jobs are shipped over seas, the economy falls apart and people need
> help.
> Their jobs are getting harder and they are taking furlough days
> (losing pay), postponing increases (read both sides, not just the
> sound bites) and they see the tragedies coming.
>
> We have given corporations huge liability protections just for
> incorporating. We save them massive insurance costs by simply
> sheltering their assets in lawsuits. Our tax laws give them
> extraordinary loopholes to shelter income from taxes that regular
> people don't get.   And for good reasons - we support businesses by
> giving them a place to do business with courts that will protect
> their interests. All these measures are doing is trimming one
> loophole (tax on Oregon sales only - remember still no change to
> taxes on out of state sales which is a HUGE loophole that remains)
> and increasing the tiny minimum.  Did you know that before the great
> depression the minimum corp tax was $25? During the depression it was
> lowered to $10. If we were going to adjust it for inflation from its
> pre depression $25 it would be $375.  And if you read the fine print
> there are tons of protections for truly small businesses.
>
> Katie
>
>
>
> On Jan 21, 2010, at 4:59 PM, Allen Warren wrote:
>
>> As reported in the Oregonian this morning, http://
>> www.oregonlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2010/01/public-
>> employee_unions_flex_mu.html, there's a good reason "Public-
>> employee unions have handily outspent business-backed foes in
>> the campaign over two tax-raising measures on Tuesday's ballot."
>>
>> Here's another interesting view from the Wall Street Journal on our
>> 2 tax measures: http://online.wsj.com/article/
>> SB10001424052748704081704574652683989209884.html#printMode
>>
>>
>> Allen Warren
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: Bob Browning <rab at jurislex.com>
>> To: Grovenet <grovenet at rdrop.com>
>> Sent: Thu, January 21, 2010 12:32:23 PM
>> Subject: [Grovenet] An interesting view on 66 and 67 . . .
>>
>>
>> The Register-Guard   http://www.registerguard.com/
>> GUEST
>> VIEWPOINT: Weighing measures 66 and 67
>> By William Jaeger
>> For The Register-Guard
>> Posted to Web: Monday, Jan 11, 2010
>> 11:41AM
>> Appeared in print: Sunday, Jan 10, 2010, page G4
>> Although some might have you
>> believe otherwise, the economics behind Measures 66 and 67 ? the tax
>> referenda that Oregonians will be deciding over the next two weeks ?
>> actually are not that complicated. The main issues can be framed as a
>> benefit-cost analysis, where public services are the benefits and
>> taxes
>> are the costs.
>> The economic question is equally
>> simple, and perhaps more to the point: Do the measures? benefits
>> outweigh their costs?
>> The answer depends in part on how
>> Oregon?s taxes and public services compare to those of other states.
>> Because Oregon competes with peers around the country in a variety of
>> ways to attract and retain businesses and to sell its products around
>> the world, we need to know whether Oregon taxes and public services
>> are
>> high or low compared to those in other states.
>> Let?s start with taxes.
>> Oregon taxes as a share of personal
>> income have been significantly below the national average for many
>> years, and the gap has widened since the 1990s (see chart).
>> The most recent data available show
>> Oregon?s state taxes at 5 percent of personal income, compared to a
>> national average of 6 percent. When state and local taxes are
>> combined,
>> the relationship is about the same: Oregon?s ranking is 44th out of 50
>> states in state taxes; 43rd in state and local taxes (which includes
>> property taxes).
>> You may hear that taxes have gone up by
>> tens of billions of dollars in Oregon over the past few years. But
>> this
>> tells us little without adjusting for inflation, increasing population
>> or economic growth.
>> The picture also would be misleading if
>> we add fees to taxes or look at total state spending rather than
>> taxes.
>> Oregon has relatively high fees in some categories such as seaports,
>> parks and recreation. But that is because, unlike most states, Oregon
>> has important international seaports, and some of the best
>> recreational
>> opportunities in the country. A large fraction of these fees are paid
>> by non-Oregonians, so they generate revenue without adding to the ?tax
>> burden? of residents.
>> What about business taxes?
>> Businesses pay taxes in a variety of
>> ways, including business property taxes, corporate income taxes,
>> unemployment insurance taxes and individual income taxes paid by
>> non-corporate businesses. In 2008, the international consulting firm
>> Ernst & Young estimated state-level business taxes (as a share of
>> state gross domestic product) and government expenditures benefiting
>> businesses for all 50 states. The firm found that Oregon ranks dead
>> last: the lowest net business taxes in the country.
>> Let?s turn to public services, where
>> education is the largest budget category. Since the 1970s, Oregon has
>> fallen from mid-range to a dismal 49th out of 50 states in terms of
>> average teacher-student ratio (see chart). Oregon also has the
>> second-shortest school year in the country.
>> Salaries and benefits at Oregon?s
>> universities are as much as 17 percent below the national average,
>> making it much harder to attract and retain the best teachers and
>> researchers. Tuition and fees at Oregon?s public two-year colleges are
>> 29 percent higher than the national average.
>> Have these trends in Oregon?s
>> educational system affected Oregon?s labor force? Oregon has seen a
>> decline in the number of college educated residents: A larger fraction
>> of older Oregonians (ages 55 to 64) have bachelor?s degrees than do
>> younger Oregonians (ages 25 to 34). The trend occurs at a time when
>> the
>> nation and the world are headed in the other direction.
>> But are Oregon?s public education funds
>> spent efficiently? According to the U.S. Department of Education,
>> Oregon spends 70 percent of education funds on instruction or student
>> services, comparable to the national average of 71 percent. A recent
>> Rutgers University study shows that 11 out of 12 categories of private
>> schools had average expenditures per pupil that were similar to or
>> higher than public schools.
>> With this background, let?s look at
>> Measures 66 and 67. Measure 66 raises personal income taxes on
>> high-income earners, those earning $125,000 individually or $250,000
>> per household. Measure 67 raises corporate income taxes by $140 per
>> year for most partnerships and corporations; for C-corporations with
>> in-state sales above $500,000, the tax increase initially amounts to
>> about 0.1 percent of gross sales.
>> The third chart shows Oregon?s tax
>> burden by income group, and how that burden would change with passage
>> of these two measures. High-income groups would see their taxes
>> rise on
>> average by a small fraction. However, they still would pay a smaller
>> share of their income in state and local taxes than would middle- or
>> low-income households. Thus, Oregon?s tax system still would be
>> regressive overall.
>> Let?s look at the effect of these tax
>> measures in the short run. President Obama has said, ?The last thing
>> you want to do in the middle of a recession is raise taxes.? That?s
>> because nationally, Congress can pay for public services by borrowing
>> against future taxes. In Oregon, deficit financing is not allowed, so
>> the choice is between cutting public services and raising taxes.
>> In this situation, most research
>> clearly shows that raising taxes on high-income families will be less
>> harmful to a state?s economy than reduced public services. So in a
>> world of two bad choices, raising taxes on high-income households is
>> ?less bad? than further cuts to public services. It also is more
>> equitable, since many of these public services support the less
>> fortunate in our communities.
>> Now, let?s consider benefits versus
>> costs in the long run.
>> All tax increases represent a cost to
>> the economy, but even with these two tax increases, Oregon still would
>> have a lower level of taxes than most other states. It is unlikely
>> that
>> these modest tax increases would discourage business owners, workers
>> and other professionals from staying in or coming to Oregon, since
>> most
>> other states? taxes are higher.
>> By contrast, the evidence of Oregon?s
>> declining public services, especially education, easily could
>> discourage entrepreneurs and professionals from coming or staying.
>> Business owners have families, and they have employees and associates
>> with families who will want to know whether the schools are good and
>> the streets are safe.
>> There is a wealth of economics
>> literature on this topic ? dozens of national studies that have looked
>> at state and local taxes, scouring the data for evidence of how to
>> maximize benefits at the minimum cost. One recent summary of those
>> studies concludes that ?there is little evidence that state and local
>> tax cuts ? when paid for by reducing public services ? stimulate
>> economic activity and create jobs,? and that ?increases in taxes, when
>> used to expand the quantity and quality of public services, can
>> promote
>> economic development and employment growth.?
>> Indeed, the long-term harm of having a
>> labor force that is increasingly ill-equipped to compete in a global
>> economy represents an unsustainable path for Oregon. Businesses can,
>> and do, hire well-trained employees from outside Oregon, however. Past
>> studies have shown that newcomers to Oregon have more education than
>> current residents, and as a result take the highest- paying jobs.
>> So it
>> may be that some businesses do not feel a need to pay to better
>> educate
>> Oregonians: They can hire workers with good educations from out of
>> state.
>> Explaining economic information and
>> interpreting economic analysis for the general public is a challenging
>> part of my job as an Oregon State University professor and Extension
>> Service policy specialist. Helping Oregonians understand objective
>> economic information is made more difficult, however, when
>> misinformation is labeled as economics.
>> Professional standards in our field
>> include a peer review process for quality control, and the backing
>> of a
>> well-established research institute, university or respected
>> consulting
>> firm. Research results always are made transparent, and data and
>> methods are made available freely to other researchers who might want
>> to examine them in detail.
>> Claims that 70,000 jobs will be lost
>> due to the ?job killing taxes? represented by Measures 66 and 67 are
>> not based on estimates that conform to these standards of the
>> economics
>> profession. These estimates were not subjected to peer review ? at
>> least not voluntarily. When examined by nationally recognized experts
>> on state and local public finance at the Brookings Institution, the
>> result was a scathing report concluding that the analyses were
>> ?without
>> merit.?
>> The economists behind these job-killing
>> estimates have failed to fully explain their methods. Indeed, months
>> after presenting to voters their estimate of 70,000 lost jobs, they
>> are
>> now backtracking on these ?guesstimates.? They recently substituted a
>> new paper that purports to come to the same conclusions but using
>> completely new data and different statistical methods. However, they
>> have refused to make their new data and new methods available to other
>> economists or the public.
>> In addition, these economists have
>> misrepresented the conclusions of scholarly publications and
>> institutions (including statements in the Oregon Voters? Pamphlet).
>> Perhaps most tellingly, none of these economists is affiliated for
>> purposes of this analysis with an institution with a reputation for
>> unbiased research.
>> Voters should understand that there is
>> no exact way to estimate the long-term effects of changes in taxes and
>> public services on jobs and economic growth. The evidence from 30
>> years
>> of economic research, however, reinforces common sense: When your
>> taxes
>> and public services are among the lowest in the country, the benefits
>> from improving poor public services ? especially education ? are
>> likely
>> to outweigh the costs of modest increases in taxes.
>> ________________________________
>>
>> THE MEASURES AT A GLANCE
>> Measure 66: Raises
>> the income tax rate on single filers? taxable income above $125,000
>> and
>> on joint filers? taxable income above $250,000.
>> Measure 67: Replaces
>> the current corporate minimum tax of $10 a year with a tiered rate of
>> between $150 and $100,000 a year. It also would temporarily increase
>> the corporate tax rate for smaller businesses and permanently for
>> those
>> with profits exceeding $10 million.
>> Copyright ? 2010 ? The Register-Guard, Eugene, Oregon, USA
>> -- 
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> GroveNet mailing list
>> GroveNet at rdrop.com
>> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
> 


From osubuckeye59 at yahoo.com  Sat Jan 23 14:28:34 2010
From: osubuckeye59 at yahoo.com (Allen Warren)
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 2010 14:28:34 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [Grovenet] An interesting view on 66 and 67 . . .
In-Reply-To: <BED3363A12A84F58996A83927A3F5F4D@JeffVAIO>
References: <4B58B9D7.9010100@jurislex.com>
	<630873.58629.qm@web112115.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<6BF999DB-6607-4ED6-A74F-13B0ECF3B1D9@verizon.net>
	<BED3363A12A84F58996A83927A3F5F4D@JeffVAIO>
Message-ID: <895223.47973.qm@web112103.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>

Marian,

Very good question.

The tax applies to sales within Oregon. Out-of-state companies that
sell products to Oregonians, such as automakers and clothing
manufacturers, would pay the tax. Oregon companies with out-of-state
markets, such as wood products firms and grain farmers, would not be
taxed on those sales. 


Allen Warren



________________________________
From: Marian Cakarnis <oldredwagon at verizon.net>
To: Forest Grove local interests list <grovenet at rdrop.com>
Sent: Sat, January 23, 2010 9:51:40 AM
Subject: Re: [Grovenet] An interesting view on 66 and 67 . . .

I'm still thinking about all the implications of the passing of 67 and 
wonder about the sales tax 'feature'.  As I understand it, companies with 
sales in excess of 500K in Oregon will be charged a tax - essentially a 
sales tax.  I've always been an opponent to the sales tax, because I can't 
fathom how much it will cost to set up a new infrastructure to collect these 
taxes from consumers.

Since measure 67 is essentially creating a sales tax, that will be collected 
through our existing infrastructure, it seems far more efficient and 
cost-effective.  But, will this so-called sales tax also be collected from 
out-of-state companies with sales in Oregon in excess of 500K?

Probably a stupid question, but I wanted to understand it before casting my 
vote.

Marian


--------------------------------------------------
From: "Katie Allnutt" <allnutt at verizon.net>
Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2010 5:43 PM
To: "Forest Grove local interests list" <grovenet at rdrop.com>
Subject: Re: [Grovenet] An interesting view on 66 and 67 . . .

> Yep, and that good reason is they are the front line soldiers as the
> jobs are shipped over seas, the economy falls apart and people need
> help.
> Their jobs are getting harder and they are taking furlough days
> (losing pay), postponing increases (read both sides, not just the
> sound bites) and they see the tragedies coming.
>
> We have given corporations huge liability protections just for
> incorporating. We save them massive insurance costs by simply
> sheltering their assets in lawsuits. Our tax laws give them
> extraordinary loopholes to shelter income from taxes that regular
> people don't get.   And for good reasons - we support businesses by
> giving them a place to do business with courts that will protect
> their interests. All these measures are doing is trimming one
> loophole (tax on Oregon sales only - remember still no change to
> taxes on out of state sales which is a HUGE loophole that remains)
> and increasing the tiny minimum.  Did you know that before the great
> depression the minimum corp tax was $25? During the depression it was
> lowered to $10. If we were going to adjust it for inflation from its
> pre depression $25 it would be $375.  And if you read the fine print
> there are tons of protections for truly small businesses.
>
> Katie
>
>
>
> On Jan 21, 2010, at 4:59 PM, Allen Warren wrote:
>
>> As reported in the Oregonian this morning, http://
>> www.oregonlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2010/01/public-
>> employee_unions_flex_mu.html, there's a good reason "Public-
>> employee unions have handily outspent business-backed foes in
>> the campaign over two tax-raising measures on Tuesday's ballot."
>>
>> Here's another interesting view from the Wall Street Journal on our
>> 2 tax measures: http://online.wsj.com/article/
>> SB10001424052748704081704574652683989209884.html#printMode
>>
>>
>> Allen Warren
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: Bob Browning <rab at jurislex.com>
>> To: Grovenet <grovenet at rdrop.com>
>> Sent: Thu, January 21, 2010 12:32:23 PM
>> Subject: [Grovenet] An interesting view on 66 and 67 . . .
>>
>>
>> The Register-Guard  http://www.registerguard.com/
>> GUEST
>> VIEWPOINT: Weighing measures 66 and 67
>> By William Jaeger
>> For The Register-Guard
>> Posted to Web: Monday, Jan 11, 2010
>> 11:41AM
>> Appeared in print: Sunday, Jan 10, 2010, page G4
>> Although some might have you
>> believe otherwise, the economics behind Measures 66 and 67 ? the tax
>> referenda that Oregonians will be deciding over the next two weeks ?
>> actually are not that complicated. The main issues can be framed as a
>> benefit-cost analysis, where public services are the benefits and
>> taxes
>> are the costs.
>> The economic question is equally
>> simple, and perhaps more to the point: Do the measures? benefits
>> outweigh their costs?
>> The answer depends in part on how
>> Oregon?s taxes and public services compare to those of other states.
>> Because Oregon competes with peers around the country in a variety of
>> ways to attract and retain businesses and to sell its products around
>> the world, we need to know whether Oregon taxes and public services
>> are
>> high or low compared to those in other states.
>> Let?s start with taxes.
>> Oregon taxes as a share of personal
>> income have been significantly below the national average for many
>> years, and the gap has widened since the 1990s (see chart).
>> The most recent data available show
>> Oregon?s state taxes at 5 percent of personal income, compared to a
>> national average of 6 percent. When state and local taxes are
>> combined,
>> the relationship is about the same: Oregon?s ranking is 44th out of 50
>> states in state taxes; 43rd in state and local taxes (which includes
>> property taxes).
>> You may hear that taxes have gone up by
>> tens of billions of dollars in Oregon over the past few years. But
>> this
>> tells us little without adjusting for inflation, increasing population
>> or economic growth.
>> The picture also would be misleading if
>> we add fees to taxes or look at total state spending rather than
>> taxes.
>> Oregon has relatively high fees in some categories such as seaports,
>> parks and recreation. But that is because, unlike most states, Oregon
>> has important international seaports, and some of the best
>> recreational
>> opportunities in the country. A large fraction of these fees are paid
>> by non-Oregonians, so they generate revenue without adding to the ?tax
>> burden? of residents.
>> What about business taxes?
>> Businesses pay taxes in a variety of
>> ways, including business property taxes, corporate income taxes,
>> unemployment insurance taxes and individual income taxes paid by
>> non-corporate businesses. In 2008, the international consulting firm
>> Ernst & Young estimated state-level business taxes (as a share of
>> state gross domestic product) and government expenditures benefiting
>> businesses for all 50 states. The firm found that Oregon ranks dead
>> last: the lowest net business taxes in the country.
>> Let?s turn to public services, where
>> education is the largest budget category. Since the 1970s, Oregon has
>> fallen from mid-range to a dismal 49th out of 50 states in terms of
>> average teacher-student ratio (see chart). Oregon also has the
>> second-shortest school year in the country.
>> Salaries and benefits at Oregon?s
>> universities are as much as 17 percent below the national average,
>> making it much harder to attract and retain the best teachers and
>> researchers. Tuition and fees at Oregon?s public two-year colleges are
>> 29 percent higher than the national average.
>> Have these trends in Oregon?s
>> educational system affected Oregon?s labor force? Oregon has seen a
>> decline in the number of college educated residents: A larger fraction
>> of older Oregonians (ages 55 to 64) have bachelor?s degrees than do
>> younger Oregonians (ages 25 to 34). The trend occurs at a time when
>> the
>> nation and the world are headed in the other direction.
>> But are Oregon?s public education funds
>> spent efficiently? According to the U.S. Department of Education,
>> Oregon spends 70 percent of education funds on instruction or student
>> services, comparable to the national average of 71 percent. A recent
>> Rutgers University study shows that 11 out of 12 categories of private
>> schools had average expenditures per pupil that were similar to or
>> higher than public schools.
>> With this background, let?s look at
>> Measures 66 and 67. Measure 66 raises personal income taxes on
>> high-income earners, those earning $125,000 individually or $250,000
>> per household. Measure 67 raises corporate income taxes by $140 per
>> year for most partnerships and corporations; for C-corporations with
>> in-state sales above $500,000, the tax increase initially amounts to
>> about 0.1 percent of gross sales.
>> The third chart shows Oregon?s tax
>> burden by income group, and how that burden would change with passage
>> of these two measures. High-income groups would see their taxes
>> rise on
>> average by a small fraction. However, they still would pay a smaller
>> share of their income in state and local taxes than would middle- or
>> low-income households. Thus, Oregon?s tax system still would be
>> regressive overall.
>> Let?s look at the effect of these tax
>> measures in the short run. President Obama has said, ?The last thing
>> you want to do in the middle of a recession is raise taxes.? That?s
>> because nationally, Congress can pay for public services by borrowing
>> against future taxes. In Oregon, deficit financing is not allowed, so
>> the choice is between cutting public services and raising taxes.
>> In this situation, most research
>> clearly shows that raising taxes on high-income families will be less
>> harmful to a state?s economy than reduced public services. So in a
>> world of two bad choices, raising taxes on high-income households is
>> ?less bad? than further cuts to public services. It also is more
>> equitable, since many of these public services support the less
>> fortunate in our communities.
>> Now, let?s consider benefits versus
>> costs in the long run.
>> All tax increases represent a cost to
>> the economy, but even with these two tax increases, Oregon still would
>> have a lower level of taxes than most other states. It is unlikely
>> that
>> these modest tax increases would discourage business owners, workers
>> and other professionals from staying in or coming to Oregon, since
>> most
>> other states? taxes are higher.
>> By contrast, the evidence of Oregon?s
>> declining public services, especially education, easily could
>> discourage entrepreneurs and professionals from coming or staying.
>> Business owners have families, and they have employees and associates
>> with families who will want to know whether the schools are good and
>> the streets are safe.
>> There is a wealth of economics
>> literature on this topic ? dozens of national studies that have looked
>> at state and local taxes, scouring the data for evidence of how to
>> maximize benefits at the minimum cost. One recent summary of those
>> studies concludes that ?there is little evidence that state and local
>> tax cuts ? when paid for by reducing public services ? stimulate
>> economic activity and create jobs,? and that ?increases in taxes, when
>> used to expand the quantity and quality of public services, can
>> promote
>> economic development and employment growth.?
>> Indeed, the long-term harm of having a
>> labor force that is increasingly ill-equipped to compete in a global
>> economy represents an unsustainable path for Oregon. Businesses can,
>> and do, hire well-trained employees from outside Oregon, however. Past
>> studies have shown that newcomers to Oregon have more education than
>> current residents, and as a result take the highest- paying jobs.
>> So it
>> may be that some businesses do not feel a need to pay to better
>> educate
>> Oregonians: They can hire workers with good educations from out of
>> state.
>> Explaining economic information and
>> interpreting economic analysis for the general public is a challenging
>> part of my job as an Oregon State University professor and Extension
>> Service policy specialist. Helping Oregonians understand objective
>> economic information is made more difficult, however, when
>> misinformation is labeled as economics.
>> Professional standards in our field
>> include a peer review process for quality control, and the backing
>> of a
>> well-established research institute, university or respected
>> consulting
>> firm. Research results always are made transparent, and data and
>> methods are made available freely to other researchers who might want
>> to examine them in detail.
>> Claims that 70,000 jobs will be lost
>> due to the ?job killing taxes? represented by Measures 66 and 67 are
>> not based on estimates that conform to these standards of the
>> economics
>> profession. These estimates were not subjected to peer review ? at
>> least not voluntarily. When examined by nationally recognized experts
>> on state and local public finance at the Brookings Institution, the
>> result was a scathing report concluding that the analyses were
>> ?without
>> merit.?
>> The economists behind these job-killing
>> estimates have failed to fully explain their methods. Indeed, months
>> after presenting to voters their estimate of 70,000 lost jobs, they
>> are
>> now backtracking on these ?guesstimates.? They recently substituted a
>> new paper that purports to come to the same conclusions but using
>> completely new data and different statistical methods. However, they
>> have refused to make their new data and new methods available to other
>> economists or the public.
>> In addition, these economists have
>> misrepresented the conclusions of scholarly publications and
>> institutions (including statements in the Oregon Voters? Pamphlet).
>> Perhaps most tellingly, none of these economists is affiliated for
>> purposes of this analysis with an institution with a reputation for
>> unbiased research.
>> Voters should understand that there is
>> no exact way to estimate the long-term effects of changes in taxes and
>> public services on jobs and economic growth. The evidence from 30
>> years
>> of economic research, however, reinforces common sense: When your
>> taxes
>> and public services are among the lowest in the country, the benefits
>> from improving poor public services ? especially education ? are
>> likely
>> to outweigh the costs of modest increases in taxes.
>> ________________________________
>>
>> THE MEASURES AT A GLANCE
>> Measure 66: Raises
>> the income tax rate on single filers? taxable income above $125,000
>> and
>> on joint filers? taxable income above $250,000.
>> Measure 67: Replaces
>> the current corporate minimum tax of $10 a year with a tiered rate of
>> between $150 and $100,000 a year. It also would temporarily increase
>> the corporate tax rate for smaller businesses and permanently for
>> those
>> with profits exceeding $10 million.
>> Copyright ? 2010 ? The Register-Guard, Eugene, Oregon, USA
>> -- 
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> GroveNet mailing list
>> GroveNet at rdrop.com
>> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
> 

_______________________________________________
GroveNet mailing list
GroveNet at rdrop.com
http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet



      

From g-g-steele at comcast.net  Sun Jan 24 05:50:59 2010
From: g-g-steele at comcast.net (Geri)
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 2010 05:50:59 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] FAXing... How to on PC
References: <23e84.5403ede1.388c7480@aol.com>
Message-ID: <91344436B6594422A7F06ECD255AB791@gerianehzkfhvy>

Appreciate it, Grouch - thank you.

:)  Geri

----- Original Message ----- 
From: <jamsm at aol.com>
To: <grovenet at rdrop.com>
Sent: Saturday, January 23, 2010 7:49 AM
Subject: [Grovenet] FAXing... How to on PC


> Detailed directions for configuring fax device
> 
> For XP  (not sure if Home supports this)
> _http://support.microsoft.com/kb/306550_ 
> (http://support.microsoft.com/kb/306550)    
> 
> For Vista (business, ultimate and enterprise)
> _http://windows.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-vista/Set-up-your-computer-to-se
> nd-and-receive-faxes_ 
> (http://windows.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-vista/Set-up-your-computer-to-send-and-receive-faxes) 
> 
> For Win7
> probably same as Vista
> 
> overview
> _http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc725953.aspx_ 
> (http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc725953.aspx) 
> 
> 
> Cheers 
> The Grouch
> 
> 
> In a message dated 1/23/2010 10:13:59 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,  
> jamsm at aol.com writes:
> 
> For any  one without a Fax machine
> If your PC has a 'modem' for telephone   dial-up Internet access THEN  WOW 
> - 
> guess what - You probably have a  FAX  machine already built into your PC !
> 
> If document to be faxed  is originates on PC  then it is very easy to  Fax.
> If you have a  scanner for externally (not already in PC) created  
> documents 
> - again  they are easily faxed.
> 
> How to (quicky/short directions):
> Connect the  PC to telephone outlet  (remove cable if fax  device is not  
> configured)
> Look under 'Control Panel'  > 'Printers and Faxes'  for configuring/adding 
> the fax device
> Once the Fax device is added it  must be configured for use before using  ! 
> 
> Open Fax  software
> 
> If you configure the fax device properly you can have it  connected all the 
> 
> time and it will automatically receive faxes  without any interference with 
> 
> regular phone calls or messages being  left.
> 
> I used to always use the PC Fax device before getting my   all-in-one 
> printer
> 
> Need more help to do this, contact me.
> 
> The  Grouch
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>



From whatsupy2k at yahoo.com  Sun Jan 24 08:32:39 2010
From: whatsupy2k at yahoo.com (Vickie Madeoneup)
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 2010 08:32:39 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [Grovenet] An interesting view on 66 and 67 . . .
In-Reply-To: <BED3363A12A84F58996A83927A3F5F4D@JeffVAIO>
References: <4B58B9D7.9010100@jurislex.com>
	<630873.58629.qm@web112115.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<6BF999DB-6607-4ED6-A74F-13B0ECF3B1D9@verizon.net>
	<BED3363A12A84F58996A83927A3F5F4D@JeffVAIO>
Message-ID: <394798.3808.qm@web112416.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>

I too am a bit confused by these 2 measures.
The vote NO folks say we will loose jobs,
the vote Yes folks say the minimum tax goes from
$10 to $150.

A business will not move because of $140 so I am 
missing something huge here.

Anyone have any insights?

Vickie



________________________________
From: Marian Cakarnis <oldredwagon at verizon.net>
To: Forest Grove local interests list <grovenet at rdrop.com>
Sent: Sat, January 23, 2010 9:51:40 AM
Subject: Re: [Grovenet] An interesting view on 66 and 67 . . .

I'm still thinking about all the implications of the passing of 67 and 
wonder about the sales tax 'feature'.? As I understand it, companies with 
sales in excess of 500K in Oregon will be charged a tax - essentially a 
sales tax.? I've always been an opponent to the sales tax, because I can't 
fathom how much it will cost to set up a new infrastructure to collect these 
taxes from consumers.

Since measure 67 is essentially creating a sales tax, that will be collected 
through our existing infrastructure, it seems far more efficient and 
cost-effective.? But, will this so-called sales tax also be collected from 
out-of-state companies with sales in Oregon in excess of 500K?

Probably a stupid question, but I wanted to understand it before casting my 
vote.

Marian


--------------------------------------------------
From: "Katie Allnutt" <allnutt at verizon.net>
Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2010 5:43 PM
To: "Forest Grove local interests list" <grovenet at rdrop.com>
Subject: Re: [Grovenet] An interesting view on 66 and 67 . . .

> Yep, and that good reason is they are the front line soldiers as the
> jobs are shipped over seas, the economy falls apart and people need
> help.
> Their jobs are getting harder and they are taking furlough days
> (losing pay), postponing increases (read both sides, not just the
> sound bites) and they see the tragedies coming.
>
> We have given corporations huge liability protections just for
> incorporating. We save them massive insurance costs by simply
> sheltering their assets in lawsuits. Our tax laws give them
> extraordinary loopholes to shelter income from taxes that regular
> people don't get.? And for good reasons - we support businesses by
> giving them a place to do business with courts that will protect
> their interests. All these measures are doing is trimming one
> loophole (tax on Oregon sales only - remember still no change to
> taxes on out of state sales which is a HUGE loophole that remains)
> and increasing the tiny minimum.? Did you know that before the great
> depression the minimum corp tax was $25? During the depression it was
> lowered to $10. If we were going to adjust it for inflation from its
> pre depression $25 it would be $375.? And if you read the fine print
> there are tons of protections for truly small businesses.
>
> Katie
>
>
>
> On Jan 21, 2010, at 4:59 PM, Allen Warren wrote:
>
>> As reported in the Oregonian this morning, http://
>> www.oregonlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2010/01/public-
>> employee_unions_flex_mu.html, there's a good reason "Public-
>> employee unions have handily outspent business-backed foes in
>> the campaign over two tax-raising measures on Tuesday's ballot."
>>
>> Here's another interesting view from the Wall Street Journal on our
>> 2 tax measures: http://online.wsj.com/article/
>> SB10001424052748704081704574652683989209884.html#printMode
>>
>>
>> Allen Warren
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: Bob Browning <rab at jurislex.com>
>> To: Grovenet <grovenet at rdrop.com>
>> Sent: Thu, January 21, 2010 12:32:23 PM
>> Subject: [Grovenet] An interesting view on 66 and 67 . . .
>>
>>
>> The Register-Guard? http://www.registerguard.com/
>> GUEST
>> VIEWPOINT: Weighing measures 66 and 67
>> By William Jaeger
>> For The Register-Guard
>> Posted to Web: Monday, Jan 11, 2010
>> 11:41AM
>> Appeared in print: Sunday, Jan 10, 2010, page G4
>> Although some might have you
>> believe otherwise, the economics behind Measures 66 and 67 ? the tax
>> referenda that Oregonians will be deciding over the next two weeks ?
>> actually are not that complicated. The main issues can be framed as a
>> benefit-cost analysis, where public services are the benefits and
>> taxes
>> are the costs.
>> The economic question is equally
>> simple, and perhaps more to the point: Do the measures? benefits
>> outweigh their costs?
>> The answer depends in part on how
>> Oregon?s taxes and public services compare to those of other states.
>> Because Oregon competes with peers around the country in a variety of
>> ways to attract and retain businesses and to sell its products around
>> the world, we need to know whether Oregon taxes and public services
>> are
>> high or low compared to those in other states.
>> Let?s start with taxes.
>> Oregon taxes as a share of personal
>> income have been significantly below the national average for many
>> years, and the gap has widened since the 1990s (see chart).
>> The most recent data available show
>> Oregon?s state taxes at 5 percent of personal income, compared to a
>> national average of 6 percent. When state and local taxes are
>> combined,
>> the relationship is about the same: Oregon?s ranking is 44th out of 50
>> states in state taxes; 43rd in state and local taxes (which includes
>> property taxes).
>> You may hear that taxes have gone up by
>> tens of billions of dollars in Oregon over the past few years. But
>> this
>> tells us little without adjusting for inflation, increasing population
>> or economic growth.
>> The picture also would be misleading if
>> we add fees to taxes or look at total state spending rather than
>> taxes.
>> Oregon has relatively high fees in some categories such as seaports,
>> parks and recreation. But that is because, unlike most states, Oregon
>> has important international seaports, and some of the best
>> recreational
>> opportunities in the country. A large fraction of these fees are paid
>> by non-Oregonians, so they generate revenue without adding to the ?tax
>> burden? of residents.
>> What about business taxes?
>> Businesses pay taxes in a variety of
>> ways, including business property taxes, corporate income taxes,
>> unemployment insurance taxes and individual income taxes paid by
>> non-corporate businesses. In 2008, the international consulting firm
>> Ernst & Young estimated state-level business taxes (as a share of
>> state gross domestic product) and government expenditures benefiting
>> businesses for all 50 states. The firm found that Oregon ranks dead
>> last: the lowest net business taxes in the country.
>> Let?s turn to public services, where
>> education is the largest budget category. Since the 1970s, Oregon has
>> fallen from mid-range to a dismal 49th out of 50 states in terms of
>> average teacher-student ratio (see chart). Oregon also has the
>> second-shortest school year in the country.
>> Salaries and benefits at Oregon?s
>> universities are as much as 17 percent below the national average,
>> making it much harder to attract and retain the best teachers and
>> researchers. Tuition and fees at Oregon?s public two-year colleges are
>> 29 percent higher than the national average.
>> Have these trends in Oregon?s
>> educational system affected Oregon?s labor force? Oregon has seen a
>> decline in the number of college educated residents: A larger fraction
>> of older Oregonians (ages 55 to 64) have bachelor?s degrees than do
>> younger Oregonians (ages 25 to 34). The trend occurs at a time when
>> the
>> nation and the world are headed in the other direction.
>> But are Oregon?s public education funds
>> spent efficiently? According to the U.S. Department of Education,
>> Oregon spends 70 percent of education funds on instruction or student
>> services, comparable to the national average of 71 percent. A recent
>> Rutgers University study shows that 11 out of 12 categories of private
>> schools had average expenditures per pupil that were similar to or
>> higher than public schools.
>> With this background, let?s look at
>> Measures 66 and 67. Measure 66 raises personal income taxes on
>> high-income earners, those earning $125,000 individually or $250,000
>> per household. Measure 67 raises corporate income taxes by $140 per
>> year for most partnerships and corporations; for C-corporations with
>> in-state sales above $500,000, the tax increase initially amounts to
>> about 0.1 percent of gross sales.
>> The third chart shows Oregon?s tax
>> burden by income group, and how that burden would change with passage
>> of these two measures. High-income groups would see their taxes
>> rise on
>> average by a small fraction. However, they still would pay a smaller
>> share of their income in state and local taxes than would middle- or
>> low-income households. Thus, Oregon?s tax system still would be
>> regressive overall.
>> Let?s look at the effect of these tax
>> measures in the short run. President Obama has said, ?The last thing
>> you want to do in the middle of a recession is raise taxes.? That?s
>> because nationally, Congress can pay for public services by borrowing
>> against future taxes. In Oregon, deficit financing is not allowed, so
>> the choice is between cutting public services and raising taxes.
>> In this situation, most research
>> clearly shows that raising taxes on high-income families will be less
>> harmful to a state?s economy than reduced public services. So in a
>> world of two bad choices, raising taxes on high-income households is
>> ?less bad? than further cuts to public services. It also is more
>> equitable, since many of these public services support the less
>> fortunate in our communities.
>> Now, let?s consider benefits versus
>> costs in the long run.
>> All tax increases represent a cost to
>> the economy, but even with these two tax increases, Oregon still would
>> have a lower level of taxes than most other states. It is unlikely
>> that
>> these modest tax increases would discourage business owners, workers
>> and other professionals from staying in or coming to Oregon, since
>> most
>> other states? taxes are higher.
>> By contrast, the evidence of Oregon?s
>> declining public services, especially education, easily could
>> discourage entrepreneurs and professionals from coming or staying.
>> Business owners have families, and they have employees and associates
>> with families who will want to know whether the schools are good and
>> the streets are safe.
>> There is a wealth of economics
>> literature on this topic ? dozens of national studies that have looked
>> at state and local taxes, scouring the data for evidence of how to
>> maximize benefits at the minimum cost. One recent summary of those
>> studies concludes that ?there is little evidence that state and local
>> tax cuts ? when paid for by reducing public services ? stimulate
>> economic activity and create jobs,? and that ?increases in taxes, when
>> used to expand the quantity and quality of public services, can
>> promote
>> economic development and employment growth.?
>> Indeed, the long-term harm of having a
>> labor force that is increasingly ill-equipped to compete in a global
>> economy represents an unsustainable path for Oregon. Businesses can,
>> and do, hire well-trained employees from outside Oregon, however. Past
>> studies have shown that newcomers to Oregon have more education than
>> current residents, and as a result take the highest- paying jobs.
>> So it
>> may be that some businesses do not feel a need to pay to better
>> educate
>> Oregonians: They can hire workers with good educations from out of
>> state.
>> Explaining economic information and
>> interpreting economic analysis for the general public is a challenging
>> part of my job as an Oregon State University professor and Extension
>> Service policy specialist. Helping Oregonians understand objective
>> economic information is made more difficult, however, when
>> misinformation is labeled as economics.
>> Professional standards in our field
>> include a peer review process for quality control, and the backing
>> of a
>> well-established research institute, university or respected
>> consulting
>> firm. Research results always are made transparent, and data and
>> methods are made available freely to other researchers who might want
>> to examine them in detail.
>> Claims that 70,000 jobs will be lost
>> due to the ?job killing taxes? represented by Measures 66 and 67 are
>> not based on estimates that conform to these standards of the
>> economics
>> profession. These estimates were not subjected to peer review ? at
>> least not voluntarily. When examined by nationally recognized experts
>> on state and local public finance at the Brookings Institution, the
>> result was a scathing report concluding that the analyses were
>> ?without
>> merit.?
>> The economists behind these job-killing
>> estimates have failed to fully explain their methods. Indeed, months
>> after presenting to voters their estimate of 70,000 lost jobs, they
>> are
>> now backtracking on these ?guesstimates.? They recently substituted a
>> new paper that purports to come to the same conclusions but using
>> completely new data and different statistical methods. However, they
>> have refused to make their new data and new methods available to other
>> economists or the public.
>> In addition, these economists have
>> misrepresented the conclusions of scholarly publications and
>> institutions (including statements in the Oregon Voters? Pamphlet).
>> Perhaps most tellingly, none of these economists is affiliated for
>> purposes of this analysis with an institution with a reputation for
>> unbiased research.
>> Voters should understand that there is
>> no exact way to estimate the long-term effects of changes in taxes and
>> public services on jobs and economic growth. The evidence from 30
>> years
>> of economic research, however, reinforces common sense: When your
>> taxes
>> and public services are among the lowest in the country, the benefits
>> from improving poor public services ? especially education ? are
>> likely
>> to outweigh the costs of modest increases in taxes.
>> ________________________________
>>
>> THE MEASURES AT A GLANCE
>> Measure 66: Raises
>> the income tax rate on single filers? taxable income above $125,000
>> and
>> on joint filers? taxable income above $250,000.
>> Measure 67: Replaces
>> the current corporate minimum tax of $10 a year with a tiered rate of
>> between $150 and $100,000 a year. It also would temporarily increase
>> the corporate tax rate for smaller businesses and permanently for
>> those
>> with profits exceeding $10 million.
>> Copyright ? 2010 ? The Register-Guard, Eugene, Oregon, USA
>> -- 
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> GroveNet mailing list
>> GroveNet at rdrop.com
>> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
> 

_______________________________________________
GroveNet mailing list
GroveNet at rdrop.com
http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet



      

From waltw at teleport.com  Sun Jan 24 08:48:03 2010
From: waltw at teleport.com (Walt Wentz)
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 2010 08:48:03 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] An interesting view on 66 and 67 . . .
In-Reply-To: <394798.3808.qm@web112416.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
References: <4B58B9D7.9010100@jurislex.com>
	<630873.58629.qm@web112115.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<6BF999DB-6607-4ED6-A74F-13B0ECF3B1D9@verizon.net>
	<BED3363A12A84F58996A83927A3F5F4D@JeffVAIO>
	<394798.3808.qm@web112416.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <2EAFFC35-81EA-4F8E-9AEB-6FB37A36A969@teleport.com>

The "vote no" folks claim we will lose jobs because they know that is  
the greatest fear of most Oregonians. In other words, it's skillful  
manipulation of public fear, by the corporations who'd have to pay  
more in taxes. The incredible numbers they toss around are pulled out  
of body apertures by a corporate PR agency.
If the measures ARE defeated, some state services (education, health  
services, public safety) would have their funds cut still further,  
and then those services would have to cut employees... so we  
definitely WILL lose jobs, if 66 & 67 are defeated. We'll also lose  
more public services, especially when federal matching funds are lost  
due to cuts in the state budget.
Walt
On Jan 24, 2010, at 8:32 AM, Vickie Madeoneup wrote:

> I too am a bit confused by these 2 measures.
> The vote NO folks say we will loose jobs,
> the vote Yes folks say the minimum tax goes from
> $10 to $150.
>
> A business will not move because of $140 so I am
> missing something huge here.
>
> Anyone have any insights?
>
> Vickie
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Marian Cakarnis <oldredwagon at verizon.net>
> To: Forest Grove local interests list <grovenet at rdrop.com>
> Sent: Sat, January 23, 2010 9:51:40 AM
> Subject: Re: [Grovenet] An interesting view on 66 and 67 . . .
>
> I'm still thinking about all the implications of the passing of 67 and
> wonder about the sales tax 'feature'.  As I understand it,  
> companies with
> sales in excess of 500K in Oregon will be charged a tax -  
> essentially a
> sales tax.  I've always been an opponent to the sales tax, because  
> I can't
> fathom how much it will cost to set up a new infrastructure to  
> collect these
> taxes from consumers.
>
> Since measure 67 is essentially creating a sales tax, that will be  
> collected
> through our existing infrastructure, it seems far more efficient and
> cost-effective.  But, will this so-called sales tax also be  
> collected from
> out-of-state companies with sales in Oregon in excess of 500K?
>
> Probably a stupid question, but I wanted to understand it before  
> casting my
> vote.
>
> Marian
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------
> From: "Katie Allnutt" <allnutt at verizon.net>
> Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2010 5:43 PM
> To: "Forest Grove local interests list" <grovenet at rdrop.com>
> Subject: Re: [Grovenet] An interesting view on 66 and 67 . . .
>
>> Yep, and that good reason is they are the front line soldiers as the
>> jobs are shipped over seas, the economy falls apart and people need
>> help.
>> Their jobs are getting harder and they are taking furlough days
>> (losing pay), postponing increases (read both sides, not just the
>> sound bites) and they see the tragedies coming.
>>
>> We have given corporations huge liability protections just for
>> incorporating. We save them massive insurance costs by simply
>> sheltering their assets in lawsuits. Our tax laws give them
>> extraordinary loopholes to shelter income from taxes that regular
>> people don't get.  And for good reasons - we support businesses by
>> giving them a place to do business with courts that will protect
>> their interests. All these measures are doing is trimming one
>> loophole (tax on Oregon sales only - remember still no change to
>> taxes on out of state sales which is a HUGE loophole that remains)
>> and increasing the tiny minimum.  Did you know that before the great
>> depression the minimum corp tax was $25? During the depression it was
>> lowered to $10. If we were going to adjust it for inflation from its
>> pre depression $25 it would be $375.  And if you read the fine print
>> there are tons of protections for truly small businesses.
>>
>> Katie
>>
>>
>>
>> On Jan 21, 2010, at 4:59 PM, Allen Warren wrote:
>>
>>> As reported in the Oregonian this morning, http://
>>> www.oregonlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2010/01/public-
>>> employee_unions_flex_mu.html, there's a good reason "Public-
>>> employee unions have handily outspent business-backed foes in
>>> the campaign over two tax-raising measures on Tuesday's ballot."
>>>
>>> Here's another interesting view from the Wall Street Journal on our
>>> 2 tax measures: http://online.wsj.com/article/
>>> SB10001424052748704081704574652683989209884.html#printMode
>>>
>>>
>>> Allen Warren
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ________________________________
>>> From: Bob Browning <rab at jurislex.com>
>>> To: Grovenet <grovenet at rdrop.com>
>>> Sent: Thu, January 21, 2010 12:32:23 PM
>>> Subject: [Grovenet] An interesting view on 66 and 67 . . .
>>>
>>>
>>> The Register-Guard  http://www.registerguard.com/
>>> GUEST
>>> VIEWPOINT: Weighing measures 66 and 67
>>> By William Jaeger
>>> For The Register-Guard
>>> Posted to Web: Monday, Jan 11, 2010
>>> 11:41AM
>>> Appeared in print: Sunday, Jan 10, 2010, page G4
>>> Although some might have you
>>> believe otherwise, the economics behind Measures 66 and 67 ? the tax
>>> referenda that Oregonians will be deciding over the next two weeks ?
>>> actually are not that complicated. The main issues can be framed  
>>> as a
>>> benefit-cost analysis, where public services are the benefits and
>>> taxes
>>> are the costs.
>>> The economic question is equally
>>> simple, and perhaps more to the point: Do the measures? benefits
>>> outweigh their costs?
>>> The answer depends in part on how
>>> Oregon?s taxes and public services compare to those of other states.
>>> Because Oregon competes with peers around the country in a  
>>> variety of
>>> ways to attract and retain businesses and to sell its products  
>>> around
>>> the world, we need to know whether Oregon taxes and public services
>>> are
>>> high or low compared to those in other states.
>>> Let?s start with taxes.
>>> Oregon taxes as a share of personal
>>> income have been significantly below the national average for many
>>> years, and the gap has widened since the 1990s (see chart).
>>> The most recent data available show
>>> Oregon?s state taxes at 5 percent of personal income, compared to a
>>> national average of 6 percent. When state and local taxes are
>>> combined,
>>> the relationship is about the same: Oregon?s ranking is 44th out  
>>> of 50
>>> states in state taxes; 43rd in state and local taxes (which includes
>>> property taxes).
>>> You may hear that taxes have gone up by
>>> tens of billions of dollars in Oregon over the past few years. But
>>> this
>>> tells us little without adjusting for inflation, increasing  
>>> population
>>> or economic growth.
>>> The picture also would be misleading if
>>> we add fees to taxes or look at total state spending rather than
>>> taxes.
>>> Oregon has relatively high fees in some categories such as seaports,
>>> parks and recreation. But that is because, unlike most states,  
>>> Oregon
>>> has important international seaports, and some of the best
>>> recreational
>>> opportunities in the country. A large fraction of these fees are  
>>> paid
>>> by non-Oregonians, so they generate revenue without adding to the  
>>> ?tax
>>> burden? of residents.
>>> What about business taxes?
>>> Businesses pay taxes in a variety of
>>> ways, including business property taxes, corporate income taxes,
>>> unemployment insurance taxes and individual income taxes paid by
>>> non-corporate businesses. In 2008, the international consulting firm
>>> Ernst & Young estimated state-level business taxes (as a share of
>>> state gross domestic product) and government expenditures benefiting
>>> businesses for all 50 states. The firm found that Oregon ranks dead
>>> last: the lowest net business taxes in the country.
>>> Let?s turn to public services, where
>>> education is the largest budget category. Since the 1970s, Oregon  
>>> has
>>> fallen from mid-range to a dismal 49th out of 50 states in terms of
>>> average teacher-student ratio (see chart). Oregon also has the
>>> second-shortest school year in the country.
>>> Salaries and benefits at Oregon?s
>>> universities are as much as 17 percent below the national average,
>>> making it much harder to attract and retain the best teachers and
>>> researchers. Tuition and fees at Oregon?s public two-year  
>>> colleges are
>>> 29 percent higher than the national average.
>>> Have these trends in Oregon?s
>>> educational system affected Oregon?s labor force? Oregon has seen a
>>> decline in the number of college educated residents: A larger  
>>> fraction
>>> of older Oregonians (ages 55 to 64) have bachelor?s degrees than do
>>> younger Oregonians (ages 25 to 34). The trend occurs at a time when
>>> the
>>> nation and the world are headed in the other direction.
>>> But are Oregon?s public education funds
>>> spent efficiently? According to the U.S. Department of Education,
>>> Oregon spends 70 percent of education funds on instruction or  
>>> student
>>> services, comparable to the national average of 71 percent. A recent
>>> Rutgers University study shows that 11 out of 12 categories of  
>>> private
>>> schools had average expenditures per pupil that were similar to or
>>> higher than public schools.
>>> With this background, let?s look at
>>> Measures 66 and 67. Measure 66 raises personal income taxes on
>>> high-income earners, those earning $125,000 individually or $250,000
>>> per household. Measure 67 raises corporate income taxes by $140 per
>>> year for most partnerships and corporations; for C-corporations with
>>> in-state sales above $500,000, the tax increase initially amounts to
>>> about 0.1 percent of gross sales.
>>> The third chart shows Oregon?s tax
>>> burden by income group, and how that burden would change with  
>>> passage
>>> of these two measures. High-income groups would see their taxes
>>> rise on
>>> average by a small fraction. However, they still would pay a smaller
>>> share of their income in state and local taxes than would middle- or
>>> low-income households. Thus, Oregon?s tax system still would be
>>> regressive overall.
>>> Let?s look at the effect of these tax
>>> measures in the short run. President Obama has said, ?The last thing
>>> you want to do in the middle of a recession is raise taxes.? That?s
>>> because nationally, Congress can pay for public services by  
>>> borrowing
>>> against future taxes. In Oregon, deficit financing is not  
>>> allowed, so
>>> the choice is between cutting public services and raising taxes.
>>> In this situation, most research
>>> clearly shows that raising taxes on high-income families will be  
>>> less
>>> harmful to a state?s economy than reduced public services. So in a
>>> world of two bad choices, raising taxes on high-income households is
>>> ?less bad? than further cuts to public services. It also is more
>>> equitable, since many of these public services support the less
>>> fortunate in our communities.
>>> Now, let?s consider benefits versus
>>> costs in the long run.
>>> All tax increases represent a cost to
>>> the economy, but even with these two tax increases, Oregon still  
>>> would
>>> have a lower level of taxes than most other states. It is unlikely
>>> that
>>> these modest tax increases would discourage business owners, workers
>>> and other professionals from staying in or coming to Oregon, since
>>> most
>>> other states? taxes are higher.
>>> By contrast, the evidence of Oregon?s
>>> declining public services, especially education, easily could
>>> discourage entrepreneurs and professionals from coming or staying.
>>> Business owners have families, and they have employees and  
>>> associates
>>> with families who will want to know whether the schools are good and
>>> the streets are safe.
>>> There is a wealth of economics
>>> literature on this topic ? dozens of national studies that have  
>>> looked
>>> at state and local taxes, scouring the data for evidence of how to
>>> maximize benefits at the minimum cost. One recent summary of those
>>> studies concludes that ?there is little evidence that state and  
>>> local
>>> tax cuts ? when paid for by reducing public services ? stimulate
>>> economic activity and create jobs,? and that ?increases in taxes,  
>>> when
>>> used to expand the quantity and quality of public services, can
>>> promote
>>> economic development and employment growth.?
>>> Indeed, the long-term harm of having a
>>> labor force that is increasingly ill-equipped to compete in a global
>>> economy represents an unsustainable path for Oregon. Businesses can,
>>> and do, hire well-trained employees from outside Oregon, however.  
>>> Past
>>> studies have shown that newcomers to Oregon have more education than
>>> current residents, and as a result take the highest- paying jobs.
>>> So it
>>> may be that some businesses do not feel a need to pay to better
>>> educate
>>> Oregonians: They can hire workers with good educations from out of
>>> state.
>>> Explaining economic information and
>>> interpreting economic analysis for the general public is a  
>>> challenging
>>> part of my job as an Oregon State University professor and Extension
>>> Service policy specialist. Helping Oregonians understand objective
>>> economic information is made more difficult, however, when
>>> misinformation is labeled as economics.
>>> Professional standards in our field
>>> include a peer review process for quality control, and the backing
>>> of a
>>> well-established research institute, university or respected
>>> consulting
>>> firm. Research results always are made transparent, and data and
>>> methods are made available freely to other researchers who might  
>>> want
>>> to examine them in detail.
>>> Claims that 70,000 jobs will be lost
>>> due to the ?job killing taxes? represented by Measures 66 and 67 are
>>> not based on estimates that conform to these standards of the
>>> economics
>>> profession. These estimates were not subjected to peer review ? at
>>> least not voluntarily. When examined by nationally recognized  
>>> experts
>>> on state and local public finance at the Brookings Institution, the
>>> result was a scathing report concluding that the analyses were
>>> ?without
>>> merit.?
>>> The economists behind these job-killing
>>> estimates have failed to fully explain their methods. Indeed, months
>>> after presenting to voters their estimate of 70,000 lost jobs, they
>>> are
>>> now backtracking on these ?guesstimates.? They recently  
>>> substituted a
>>> new paper that purports to come to the same conclusions but using
>>> completely new data and different statistical methods. However, they
>>> have refused to make their new data and new methods available to  
>>> other
>>> economists or the public.
>>> In addition, these economists have
>>> misrepresented the conclusions of scholarly publications and
>>> institutions (including statements in the Oregon Voters? Pamphlet).
>>> Perhaps most tellingly, none of these economists is affiliated for
>>> purposes of this analysis with an institution with a reputation for
>>> unbiased research.
>>> Voters should understand that there is
>>> no exact way to estimate the long-term effects of changes in  
>>> taxes and
>>> public services on jobs and economic growth. The evidence from 30
>>> years
>>> of economic research, however, reinforces common sense: When your
>>> taxes
>>> and public services are among the lowest in the country, the  
>>> benefits
>>> from improving poor public services ? especially education ? are
>>> likely
>>> to outweigh the costs of modest increases in taxes.
>>> ________________________________
>>>
>>> THE MEASURES AT A GLANCE
>>> Measure 66: Raises
>>> the income tax rate on single filers? taxable income above $125,000
>>> and
>>> on joint filers? taxable income above $250,000.
>>> Measure 67: Replaces
>>> the current corporate minimum tax of $10 a year with a tiered  
>>> rate of
>>> between $150 and $100,000 a year. It also would temporarily increase
>>> the corporate tax rate for smaller businesses and permanently for
>>> those
>>> with profits exceeding $10 million.
>>> Copyright ? 2010 ? The Register-Guard, Eugene, Oregon, USA
>>> -- 
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> GroveNet mailing list
>>> GroveNet at rdrop.com
>>> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> GroveNet mailing list
>> GroveNet at rdrop.com
>> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet




From NoSpam03 at comcast.net  Sun Jan 24 09:11:58 2010
From: NoSpam03 at comcast.net (Steven)
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 2010 09:11:58 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] An interesting view on 66 and 67 . . .
In-Reply-To: <2EAFFC35-81EA-4F8E-9AEB-6FB37A36A969@teleport.com>
References: <4B58B9D7.9010100@jurislex.com>	<630873.58629.qm@web112115.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>	<6BF999DB-6607-4ED6-A74F-13B0ECF3B1D9@verizon.net>	<BED3363A12A84F58996A83927A3F5F4D@JeffVAIO>	<394798.3808.qm@web112416.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<2EAFFC35-81EA-4F8E-9AEB-6FB37A36A969@teleport.com>
Message-ID: <001101ca9d18$57979bd0$06c6d370$@net>

And the vote Yes folks use $250,000 income as the tax level when it is
actually $125,000 for individuals. Bigger number sounds better.

If this is only a little increase, how will it reap hundreds of millions of
dollars? Mostly it will go to pay raises. Meanwhile many of us have cut
salaries to stay afloat.

-----Original Message-----
From: grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com [mailto:grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com] On
Behalf Of Walt Wentz
Sent: Sunday, January 24, 2010 8:48 AM
To: Forest Grove local interests list
Subject: Re: [Grovenet] An interesting view on 66 and 67 . . .

The "vote no" folks claim we will lose jobs because they know that is  
the greatest fear of most Oregonians. In other words, it's skillful  
manipulation of public fear, by the corporations who'd have to pay  
more in taxes. The incredible numbers they toss around are pulled out  
of body apertures by a corporate PR agency.
If the measures ARE defeated, some state services (education, health  
services, public safety) would have their funds cut still further,  
and then those services would have to cut employees... so we  
definitely WILL lose jobs, if 66 & 67 are defeated. We'll also lose  
more public services, especially when federal matching funds are lost  
due to cuts in the state budget.
Walt
On Jan 24, 2010, at 8:32 AM, Vickie Madeoneup wrote:

> I too am a bit confused by these 2 measures.
> The vote NO folks say we will loose jobs,
> the vote Yes folks say the minimum tax goes from
> $10 to $150.
>
> A business will not move because of $140 so I am
> missing something huge here.
>
> Anyone have any insights?
>
> Vickie
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Marian Cakarnis <oldredwagon at verizon.net>
> To: Forest Grove local interests list <grovenet at rdrop.com>
> Sent: Sat, January 23, 2010 9:51:40 AM
> Subject: Re: [Grovenet] An interesting view on 66 and 67 . . .
>
> I'm still thinking about all the implications of the passing of 67 and
> wonder about the sales tax 'feature'.  As I understand it,  
> companies with
> sales in excess of 500K in Oregon will be charged a tax -  
> essentially a
> sales tax.  I've always been an opponent to the sales tax, because  
> I can't
> fathom how much it will cost to set up a new infrastructure to  
> collect these
> taxes from consumers.
>
> Since measure 67 is essentially creating a sales tax, that will be  
> collected
> through our existing infrastructure, it seems far more efficient and
> cost-effective.  But, will this so-called sales tax also be  
> collected from
> out-of-state companies with sales in Oregon in excess of 500K?
>
> Probably a stupid question, but I wanted to understand it before  
> casting my
> vote.
>
> Marian
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------
> From: "Katie Allnutt" <allnutt at verizon.net>
> Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2010 5:43 PM
> To: "Forest Grove local interests list" <grovenet at rdrop.com>
> Subject: Re: [Grovenet] An interesting view on 66 and 67 . . .
>
>> Yep, and that good reason is they are the front line soldiers as the
>> jobs are shipped over seas, the economy falls apart and people need
>> help.
>> Their jobs are getting harder and they are taking furlough days
>> (losing pay), postponing increases (read both sides, not just the
>> sound bites) and they see the tragedies coming.
>>
>> We have given corporations huge liability protections just for
>> incorporating. We save them massive insurance costs by simply
>> sheltering their assets in lawsuits. Our tax laws give them
>> extraordinary loopholes to shelter income from taxes that regular
>> people don't get.  And for good reasons - we support businesses by
>> giving them a place to do business with courts that will protect
>> their interests. All these measures are doing is trimming one
>> loophole (tax on Oregon sales only - remember still no change to
>> taxes on out of state sales which is a HUGE loophole that remains)
>> and increasing the tiny minimum.  Did you know that before the great
>> depression the minimum corp tax was $25? During the depression it was
>> lowered to $10. If we were going to adjust it for inflation from its
>> pre depression $25 it would be $375.  And if you read the fine print
>> there are tons of protections for truly small businesses.
>>
>> Katie
>>
>>
>>
>> On Jan 21, 2010, at 4:59 PM, Allen Warren wrote:
>>
>>> As reported in the Oregonian this morning, http://
>>> www.oregonlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2010/01/public-
>>> employee_unions_flex_mu.html, there's a good reason "Public-
>>> employee unions have handily outspent business-backed foes in
>>> the campaign over two tax-raising measures on Tuesday's ballot."
>>>
>>> Here's another interesting view from the Wall Street Journal on our
>>> 2 tax measures: http://online.wsj.com/article/
>>> SB10001424052748704081704574652683989209884.html#printMode
>>>
>>>
>>> Allen Warren
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ________________________________
>>> From: Bob Browning <rab at jurislex.com>
>>> To: Grovenet <grovenet at rdrop.com>
>>> Sent: Thu, January 21, 2010 12:32:23 PM
>>> Subject: [Grovenet] An interesting view on 66 and 67 . . .
>>>
>>>
>>> The Register-Guard  http://www.registerguard.com/
>>> GUEST
>>> VIEWPOINT: Weighing measures 66 and 67
>>> By William Jaeger
>>> For The Register-Guard
>>> Posted to Web: Monday, Jan 11, 2010
>>> 11:41AM
>>> Appeared in print: Sunday, Jan 10, 2010, page G4
>>> Although some might have you
>>> believe otherwise, the economics behind Measures 66 and 67 - the tax
>>> referenda that Oregonians will be deciding over the next two weeks -
>>> actually are not that complicated. The main issues can be framed  
>>> as a
>>> benefit-cost analysis, where public services are the benefits and
>>> taxes
>>> are the costs.
>>> The economic question is equally
>>> simple, and perhaps more to the point: Do the measures' benefits
>>> outweigh their costs?
>>> The answer depends in part on how
>>> Oregon's taxes and public services compare to those of other states.
>>> Because Oregon competes with peers around the country in a  
>>> variety of
>>> ways to attract and retain businesses and to sell its products  
>>> around
>>> the world, we need to know whether Oregon taxes and public services
>>> are
>>> high or low compared to those in other states.
>>> Let's start with taxes.
>>> Oregon taxes as a share of personal
>>> income have been significantly below the national average for many
>>> years, and the gap has widened since the 1990s (see chart).
>>> The most recent data available show
>>> Oregon's state taxes at 5 percent of personal income, compared to a
>>> national average of 6 percent. When state and local taxes are
>>> combined,
>>> the relationship is about the same: Oregon's ranking is 44th out  
>>> of 50
>>> states in state taxes; 43rd in state and local taxes (which includes
>>> property taxes).
>>> You may hear that taxes have gone up by
>>> tens of billions of dollars in Oregon over the past few years. But
>>> this
>>> tells us little without adjusting for inflation, increasing  
>>> population
>>> or economic growth.
>>> The picture also would be misleading if
>>> we add fees to taxes or look at total state spending rather than
>>> taxes.
>>> Oregon has relatively high fees in some categories such as seaports,
>>> parks and recreation. But that is because, unlike most states,  
>>> Oregon
>>> has important international seaports, and some of the best
>>> recreational
>>> opportunities in the country. A large fraction of these fees are  
>>> paid
>>> by non-Oregonians, so they generate revenue without adding to the  
>>> "tax
>>> burden" of residents.
>>> What about business taxes?
>>> Businesses pay taxes in a variety of
>>> ways, including business property taxes, corporate income taxes,
>>> unemployment insurance taxes and individual income taxes paid by
>>> non-corporate businesses. In 2008, the international consulting firm
>>> Ernst & Young estimated state-level business taxes (as a share of
>>> state gross domestic product) and government expenditures benefiting
>>> businesses for all 50 states. The firm found that Oregon ranks dead
>>> last: the lowest net business taxes in the country.
>>> Let's turn to public services, where
>>> education is the largest budget category. Since the 1970s, Oregon  
>>> has
>>> fallen from mid-range to a dismal 49th out of 50 states in terms of
>>> average teacher-student ratio (see chart). Oregon also has the
>>> second-shortest school year in the country.
>>> Salaries and benefits at Oregon's
>>> universities are as much as 17 percent below the national average,
>>> making it much harder to attract and retain the best teachers and
>>> researchers. Tuition and fees at Oregon's public two-year  
>>> colleges are
>>> 29 percent higher than the national average.
>>> Have these trends in Oregon's
>>> educational system affected Oregon's labor force? Oregon has seen a
>>> decline in the number of college educated residents: A larger  
>>> fraction
>>> of older Oregonians (ages 55 to 64) have bachelor's degrees than do
>>> younger Oregonians (ages 25 to 34). The trend occurs at a time when
>>> the
>>> nation and the world are headed in the other direction.
>>> But are Oregon's public education funds
>>> spent efficiently? According to the U.S. Department of Education,
>>> Oregon spends 70 percent of education funds on instruction or  
>>> student
>>> services, comparable to the national average of 71 percent. A recent
>>> Rutgers University study shows that 11 out of 12 categories of  
>>> private
>>> schools had average expenditures per pupil that were similar to or
>>> higher than public schools.
>>> With this background, let's look at
>>> Measures 66 and 67. Measure 66 raises personal income taxes on
>>> high-income earners, those earning $125,000 individually or $250,000
>>> per household. Measure 67 raises corporate income taxes by $140 per
>>> year for most partnerships and corporations; for C-corporations with
>>> in-state sales above $500,000, the tax increase initially amounts to
>>> about 0.1 percent of gross sales.
>>> The third chart shows Oregon's tax
>>> burden by income group, and how that burden would change with  
>>> passage
>>> of these two measures. High-income groups would see their taxes
>>> rise on
>>> average by a small fraction. However, they still would pay a smaller
>>> share of their income in state and local taxes than would middle- or
>>> low-income households. Thus, Oregon's tax system still would be
>>> regressive overall.
>>> Let's look at the effect of these tax
>>> measures in the short run. President Obama has said, "The last thing
>>> you want to do in the middle of a recession is raise taxes." That's
>>> because nationally, Congress can pay for public services by  
>>> borrowing
>>> against future taxes. In Oregon, deficit financing is not  
>>> allowed, so
>>> the choice is between cutting public services and raising taxes.
>>> In this situation, most research
>>> clearly shows that raising taxes on high-income families will be  
>>> less
>>> harmful to a state's economy than reduced public services. So in a
>>> world of two bad choices, raising taxes on high-income households is
>>> "less bad" than further cuts to public services. It also is more
>>> equitable, since many of these public services support the less
>>> fortunate in our communities.
>>> Now, let's consider benefits versus
>>> costs in the long run.
>>> All tax increases represent a cost to
>>> the economy, but even with these two tax increases, Oregon still  
>>> would
>>> have a lower level of taxes than most other states. It is unlikely
>>> that
>>> these modest tax increases would discourage business owners, workers
>>> and other professionals from staying in or coming to Oregon, since
>>> most
>>> other states' taxes are higher.
>>> By contrast, the evidence of Oregon's
>>> declining public services, especially education, easily could
>>> discourage entrepreneurs and professionals from coming or staying.
>>> Business owners have families, and they have employees and  
>>> associates
>>> with families who will want to know whether the schools are good and
>>> the streets are safe.
>>> There is a wealth of economics
>>> literature on this topic - dozens of national studies that have  
>>> looked
>>> at state and local taxes, scouring the data for evidence of how to
>>> maximize benefits at the minimum cost. One recent summary of those
>>> studies concludes that "there is little evidence that state and  
>>> local
>>> tax cuts - when paid for by reducing public services - stimulate
>>> economic activity and create jobs," and that "increases in taxes,  
>>> when
>>> used to expand the quantity and quality of public services, can
>>> promote
>>> economic development and employment growth."
>>> Indeed, the long-term harm of having a
>>> labor force that is increasingly ill-equipped to compete in a global
>>> economy represents an unsustainable path for Oregon. Businesses can,
>>> and do, hire well-trained employees from outside Oregon, however.  
>>> Past
>>> studies have shown that newcomers to Oregon have more education than
>>> current residents, and as a result take the highest- paying jobs.
>>> So it
>>> may be that some businesses do not feel a need to pay to better
>>> educate
>>> Oregonians: They can hire workers with good educations from out of
>>> state.
>>> Explaining economic information and
>>> interpreting economic analysis for the general public is a  
>>> challenging
>>> part of my job as an Oregon State University professor and Extension
>>> Service policy specialist. Helping Oregonians understand objective
>>> economic information is made more difficult, however, when
>>> misinformation is labeled as economics.
>>> Professional standards in our field
>>> include a peer review process for quality control, and the backing
>>> of a
>>> well-established research institute, university or respected
>>> consulting
>>> firm. Research results always are made transparent, and data and
>>> methods are made available freely to other researchers who might  
>>> want
>>> to examine them in detail.
>>> Claims that 70,000 jobs will be lost
>>> due to the "job killing taxes" represented by Measures 66 and 67 are
>>> not based on estimates that conform to these standards of the
>>> economics
>>> profession. These estimates were not subjected to peer review - at
>>> least not voluntarily. When examined by nationally recognized  
>>> experts
>>> on state and local public finance at the Brookings Institution, the
>>> result was a scathing report concluding that the analyses were
>>> "without
>>> merit."
>>> The economists behind these job-killing
>>> estimates have failed to fully explain their methods. Indeed, months
>>> after presenting to voters their estimate of 70,000 lost jobs, they
>>> are
>>> now backtracking on these "guesstimates." They recently  
>>> substituted a
>>> new paper that purports to come to the same conclusions but using
>>> completely new data and different statistical methods. However, they
>>> have refused to make their new data and new methods available to  
>>> other
>>> economists or the public.
>>> In addition, these economists have
>>> misrepresented the conclusions of scholarly publications and
>>> institutions (including statements in the Oregon Voters' Pamphlet).
>>> Perhaps most tellingly, none of these economists is affiliated for
>>> purposes of this analysis with an institution with a reputation for
>>> unbiased research.
>>> Voters should understand that there is
>>> no exact way to estimate the long-term effects of changes in  
>>> taxes and
>>> public services on jobs and economic growth. The evidence from 30
>>> years
>>> of economic research, however, reinforces common sense: When your
>>> taxes
>>> and public services are among the lowest in the country, the  
>>> benefits
>>> from improving poor public services - especially education - are
>>> likely
>>> to outweigh the costs of modest increases in taxes.
>>> ________________________________
>>>
>>> THE MEASURES AT A GLANCE
>>> Measure 66: Raises
>>> the income tax rate on single filers' taxable income above $125,000
>>> and
>>> on joint filers' taxable income above $250,000.
>>> Measure 67: Replaces
>>> the current corporate minimum tax of $10 a year with a tiered  
>>> rate of
>>> between $150 and $100,000 a year. It also would temporarily increase
>>> the corporate tax rate for smaller businesses and permanently for
>>> those
>>> with profits exceeding $10 million.
>>> Copyright C 2010 - The Register-Guard, Eugene, Oregon, USA
>>> -- 
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> GroveNet mailing list
>>> GroveNet at rdrop.com
>>> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> GroveNet mailing list
>> GroveNet at rdrop.com
>> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet



_______________________________________________
GroveNet mailing list
GroveNet at rdrop.com
http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet



From whatsupy2k at yahoo.com  Sun Jan 24 09:25:45 2010
From: whatsupy2k at yahoo.com (Vickie Madeoneup)
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 2010 09:25:45 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [Grovenet] An interesting view on 66 and 67 . . .
In-Reply-To: <001101ca9d18$57979bd0$06c6d370$@net>
References: <4B58B9D7.9010100@jurislex.com>
	<630873.58629.qm@web112115.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<6BF999DB-6607-4ED6-A74F-13B0ECF3B1D9@verizon.net>
	<BED3363A12A84F58996A83927A3F5F4D@JeffVAIO>
	<394798.3808.qm@web112416.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<2EAFFC35-81EA-4F8E-9AEB-6FB37A36A969@teleport.com>
	<001101ca9d18$57979bd0$06c6d370$@net>
Message-ID: <358463.58799.qm@web112411.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>

this is what drives me crazy about politics. I realize that one side does not want to 
provide the argument for the other side, but how about giving the people an accurate 
picture and letting us vote intelligently and informed without making it more complicated or
confusing than it needs to be.
?
I believe the current?form of providing the "facts" is what makes people distrust politics
in the first place and to feel apathetic about any difference they can make.
My 2 cents
?
Vickie
And the vote Yes folks use $250,000 income as the tax level when it is
actually $125,000 for individuals. Bigger number sounds better.

If this is only a little increase, how will it reap hundreds of millions of
dollars? Mostly it will go to pay raises. Meanwhile many of us have cut
salaries to stay afloat.

-----Original Message-----
From: grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com [mailto:grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com] On
Behalf Of Walt Wentz
Sent: Sunday, January 24, 2010 8:48 AM
To: Forest Grove local interests list
Subject: Re: [Grovenet] An interesting view on 66 and 67 . . .

The "vote no" folks claim we will lose jobs because they know that is? 
the greatest fear of most Oregonians. In other words, it's skillful? 
manipulation of public fear, by the corporations who'd have to pay? 
more in taxes. The incredible numbers they toss around are pulled out? 
of body apertures by a corporate PR agency.
If the measures ARE defeated, some state services (education, health? 
services, public safety) would have their funds cut still further,? 
and then those services would have to cut employees... so we? 
definitely WILL lose jobs, if 66 & 67 are defeated. We'll also lose? 
more public services, especially when federal matching funds are lost? 
due to cuts in the state budget.
Walt
On Jan 24, 2010, at 8:32 AM, Vickie Madeoneup wrote:

> I too am a bit confused by these 2 measures.
> The vote NO folks say we will loose jobs,
> the vote Yes folks say the minimum tax goes from
> $10 to $150.
>
> A business will not move because of $140 so I am
> missing something huge here.
>
> Anyone have any insights?
>
> Vickie
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Marian Cakarnis <oldredwagon at verizon.net>
> To: Forest Grove local interests list <grovenet at rdrop.com>
> Sent: Sat, January 23, 2010 9:51:40 AM
> Subject: Re: [Grovenet] An interesting view on 66 and 67 . . .
>
> I'm still thinking about all the implications of the passing of 67 and
> wonder about the sales tax 'feature'.? As I understand it,? 
> companies with
> sales in excess of 500K in Oregon will be charged a tax -? 
> essentially a
> sales tax.? I've always been an opponent to the sales tax, because? 
> I can't
> fathom how much it will cost to set up a new infrastructure to? 
> collect these
> taxes from consumers.
>
> Since measure 67 is essentially creating a sales tax, that will be? 
> collected
> through our existing infrastructure, it seems far more efficient and
> cost-effective.? But, will this so-called sales tax also be? 
> collected from
> out-of-state companies with sales in Oregon in excess of 500K?
>
> Probably a stupid question, but I wanted to understand it before? 
> casting my
> vote.
>
> Marian
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------
> From: "Katie Allnutt" <allnutt at verizon.net>
> Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2010 5:43 PM
> To: "Forest Grove local interests list" <grovenet at rdrop.com>
> Subject: Re: [Grovenet] An interesting view on 66 and 67 . . .
>
>> Yep, and that good reason is they are the front line soldiers as the
>> jobs are shipped over seas, the economy falls apart and people need
>> help.
>> Their jobs are getting harder and they are taking furlough days
>> (losing pay), postponing increases (read both sides, not just the
>> sound bites) and they see the tragedies coming.
>>
>> We have given corporations huge liability protections just for
>> incorporating. We save them massive insurance costs by simply
>> sheltering their assets in lawsuits. Our tax laws give them
>> extraordinary loopholes to shelter income from taxes that regular
>> people don't get.? And for good reasons - we support businesses by
>> giving them a place to do business with courts that will protect
>> their interests. All these measures are doing is trimming one
>> loophole (tax on Oregon sales only - remember still no change to
>> taxes on out of state sales which is a HUGE loophole that remains)
>> and increasing the tiny minimum.? Did you know that before the great
>> depression the minimum corp tax was $25? During the depression it was
>> lowered to $10. If we were going to adjust it for inflation from its
>> pre depression $25 it would be $375.? And if you read the fine print
>> there are tons of protections for truly small businesses.
>>
>> Katie
>>
>>
>>
>> On Jan 21, 2010, at 4:59 PM, Allen Warren wrote:
>>
>>> As reported in the Oregonian this morning, http://
>>> www.oregonlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2010/01/public-
>>> employee_unions_flex_mu.html, there's a good reason "Public-
>>> employee unions have handily outspent business-backed foes in
>>> the campaign over two tax-raising measures on Tuesday's ballot."
>>>
>>> Here's another interesting view from the Wall Street Journal on our
>>> 2 tax measures: http://online.wsj.com/article/
>>> SB10001424052748704081704574652683989209884.html#printMode
>>>
>>>
>>> Allen Warren
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ________________________________
>>> From: Bob Browning <rab at jurislex.com>
>>> To: Grovenet <grovenet at rdrop.com>
>>> Sent: Thu, January 21, 2010 12:32:23 PM
>>> Subject: [Grovenet] An interesting view on 66 and 67 . . .
>>>
>>>
>>> The Register-Guard? http://www.registerguard.com/
>>> GUEST
>>> VIEWPOINT: Weighing measures 66 and 67
>>> By William Jaeger
>>> For The Register-Guard
>>> Posted to Web: Monday, Jan 11, 2010
>>> 11:41AM
>>> Appeared in print: Sunday, Jan 10, 2010, page G4
>>> Although some might have you
>>> believe otherwise, the economics behind Measures 66 and 67 - the tax
>>> referenda that Oregonians will be deciding over the next two weeks -
>>> actually are not that complicated. The main issues can be framed? 
>>> as a
>>> benefit-cost analysis, where public services are the benefits and
>>> taxes
>>> are the costs.
>>> The economic question is equally
>>> simple, and perhaps more to the point: Do the measures' benefits
>>> outweigh their costs?
>>> The answer depends in part on how
>>> Oregon's taxes and public services compare to those of other states.
>>> Because Oregon competes with peers around the country in a? 
>>> variety of
>>> ways to attract and retain businesses and to sell its products? 
>>> around
>>> the world, we need to know whether Oregon taxes and public services
>>> are
>>> high or low compared to those in other states.
>>> Let's start with taxes.
>>> Oregon taxes as a share of personal
>>> income have been significantly below the national average for many
>>> years, and the gap has widened since the 1990s (see chart).
>>> The most recent data available show
>>> Oregon's state taxes at 5 percent of personal income, compared to a
>>> national average of 6 percent. When state and local taxes are
>>> combined,
>>> the relationship is about the same: Oregon's ranking is 44th out? 
>>> of 50
>>> states in state taxes; 43rd in state and local taxes (which includes
>>> property taxes).
>>> You may hear that taxes have gone up by
>>> tens of billions of dollars in Oregon over the past few years. But
>>> this
>>> tells us little without adjusting for inflation, increasing? 
>>> population
>>> or economic growth.
>>> The picture also would be misleading if
>>> we add fees to taxes or look at total state spending rather than
>>> taxes.
>>> Oregon has relatively high fees in some categories such as seaports,
>>> parks and recreation. But that is because, unlike most states,? 
>>> Oregon
>>> has important international seaports, and some of the best
>>> recreational
>>> opportunities in the country. A large fraction of these fees are? 
>>> paid
>>> by non-Oregonians, so they generate revenue without adding to the? 
>>> "tax
>>> burden" of residents.
>>> What about business taxes?
>>> Businesses pay taxes in a variety of
>>> ways, including business property taxes, corporate income taxes,
>>> unemployment insurance taxes and individual income taxes paid by
>>> non-corporate businesses. In 2008, the international consulting firm
>>> Ernst & Young estimated state-level business taxes (as a share of
>>> state gross domestic product) and government expenditures benefiting
>>> businesses for all 50 states. The firm found that Oregon ranks dead
>>> last: the lowest net business taxes in the country.
>>> Let's turn to public services, where
>>> education is the largest budget category. Since the 1970s, Oregon? 
>>> has
>>> fallen from mid-range to a dismal 49th out of 50 states in terms of
>>> average teacher-student ratio (see chart). Oregon also has the
>>> second-shortest school year in the country.
>>> Salaries and benefits at Oregon's
>>> universities are as much as 17 percent below the national average,
>>> making it much harder to attract and retain the best teachers and
>>> researchers. Tuition and fees at Oregon's public two-year? 
>>> colleges are
>>> 29 percent higher than the national average.
>>> Have these trends in Oregon's
>>> educational system affected Oregon's labor force? Oregon has seen a
>>> decline in the number of college educated residents: A larger? 
>>> fraction
>>> of older Oregonians (ages 55 to 64) have bachelor's degrees than do
>>> younger Oregonians (ages 25 to 34). The trend occurs at a time when
>>> the
>>> nation and the world are headed in the other direction.
>>> But are Oregon's public education funds
>>> spent efficiently? According to the U.S. Department of Education,
>>> Oregon spends 70 percent of education funds on instruction or? 
>>> student
>>> services, comparable to the national average of 71 percent. A recent
>>> Rutgers University study shows that 11 out of 12 categories of? 
>>> private
>>> schools had average expenditures per pupil that were similar to or
>>> higher than public schools.
>>> With this background, let's look at
>>> Measures 66 and 67. Measure 66 raises personal income taxes on
>>> high-income earners, those earning $125,000 individually or $250,000
>>> per household. Measure 67 raises corporate income taxes by $140 per
>>> year for most partnerships and corporations; for C-corporations with
>>> in-state sales above $500,000, the tax increase initially amounts to
>>> about 0.1 percent of gross sales.
>>> The third chart shows Oregon's tax
>>> burden by income group, and how that burden would change with? 
>>> passage
>>> of these two measures. High-income groups would see their taxes
>>> rise on
>>> average by a small fraction. However, they still would pay a smaller
>>> share of their income in state and local taxes than would middle- or
>>> low-income households. Thus, Oregon's tax system still would be
>>> regressive overall.
>>> Let's look at the effect of these tax
>>> measures in the short run. President Obama has said, "The last thing
>>> you want to do in the middle of a recession is raise taxes." That's
>>> because nationally, Congress can pay for public services by? 
>>> borrowing
>>> against future taxes. In Oregon, deficit financing is not? 
>>> allowed, so
>>> the choice is between cutting public services and raising taxes.
>>> In this situation, most research
>>> clearly shows that raising taxes on high-income families will be? 
>>> less
>>> harmful to a state's economy than reduced public services. So in a
>>> world of two bad choices, raising taxes on high-income households is
>>> "less bad" than further cuts to public services. It also is more
>>> equitable, since many of these public services support the less
>>> fortunate in our communities.
>>> Now, let's consider benefits versus
>>> costs in the long run.
>>> All tax increases represent a cost to
>>> the economy, but even with these two tax increases, Oregon still? 
>>> would
>>> have a lower level of taxes than most other states. It is unlikely
>>> that
>>> these modest tax increases would discourage business owners, workers
>>> and other professionals from staying in or coming to Oregon, since
>>> most
>>> other states' taxes are higher.
>>> By contrast, the evidence of Oregon's
>>> declining public services, especially education, easily could
>>> discourage entrepreneurs and professionals from coming or staying.
>>> Business owners have families, and they have employees and? 
>>> associates
>>> with families who will want to know whether the schools are good and
>>> the streets are safe.
>>> There is a wealth of economics
>>> literature on this topic - dozens of national studies that have? 
>>> looked
>>> at state and local taxes, scouring the data for evidence of how to
>>> maximize benefits at the minimum cost. One recent summary of those
>>> studies concludes that "there is little evidence that state and? 
>>> local
>>> tax cuts - when paid for by reducing public services - stimulate
>>> economic activity and create jobs," and that "increases in taxes,? 
>>> when
>>> used to expand the quantity and quality of public services, can
>>> promote
>>> economic development and employment growth."
>>> Indeed, the long-term harm of having a
>>> labor force that is increasingly ill-equipped to compete in a global
>>> economy represents an unsustainable path for Oregon. Businesses can,
>>> and do, hire well-trained employees from outside Oregon, however.? 
>>> Past
>>> studies have shown that newcomers to Oregon have more education than
>>> current residents, and as a result take the highest- paying jobs.
>>> So it
>>> may be that some businesses do not feel a need to pay to better
>>> educate
>>> Oregonians: They can hire workers with good educations from out of
>>> state.
>>> Explaining economic information and
>>> interpreting economic analysis for the general public is a? 
>>> challenging
>>> part of my job as an Oregon State University professor and Extension
>>> Service policy specialist. Helping Oregonians understand objective
>>> economic information is made more difficult, however, when
>>> misinformation is labeled as economics.
>>> Professional standards in our field
>>> include a peer review process for quality control, and the backing
>>> of a
>>> well-established research institute, university or respected
>>> consulting
>>> firm. Research results always are made transparent, and data and
>>> methods are made available freely to other researchers who might? 
>>> want
>>> to examine them in detail.
>>> Claims that 70,000 jobs will be lost
>>> due to the "job killing taxes" represented by Measures 66 and 67 are
>>> not based on estimates that conform to these standards of the
>>> economics
>>> profession. These estimates were not subjected to peer review - at
>>> least not voluntarily. When examined by nationally recognized? 
>>> experts
>>> on state and local public finance at the Brookings Institution, the
>>> result was a scathing report concluding that the analyses were
>>> "without
>>> merit."
>>> The economists behind these job-killing
>>> estimates have failed to fully explain their methods. Indeed, months
>>> after presenting to voters their estimate of 70,000 lost jobs, they
>>> are
>>> now backtracking on these "guesstimates." They recently? 
>>> substituted a
>>> new paper that purports to come to the same conclusions but using
>>> completely new data and different statistical methods. However, they
>>> have refused to make their new data and new methods available to? 
>>> other
>>> economists or the public.
>>> In addition, these economists have
>>> misrepresented the conclusions of scholarly publications and
>>> institutions (including statements in the Oregon Voters' Pamphlet).
>>> Perhaps most tellingly, none of these economists is affiliated for
>>> purposes of this analysis with an institution with a reputation for
>>> unbiased research.
>>> Voters should understand that there is
>>> no exact way to estimate the long-term effects of changes in? 
>>> taxes and
>>> public services on jobs and economic growth. The evidence from 30
>>> years
>>> of economic research, however, reinforces common sense: When your
>>> taxes
>>> and public services are among the lowest in the country, the? 
>>> benefits
>>> from improving poor public services - especially education - are
>>> likely
>>> to outweigh the costs of modest increases in taxes.
>>> ________________________________
>>>
>>> THE MEASURES AT A GLANCE
>>> Measure 66: Raises
>>> the income tax rate on single filers' taxable income above $125,000
>>> and
>>> on joint filers' taxable income above $250,000.
>>> Measure 67: Replaces
>>> the current corporate minimum tax of $10 a year with a tiered? 
>>> rate of
>>> between $150 and $100,000 a year. It also would temporarily increase
>>> the corporate tax rate for smaller businesses and permanently for
>>> those
>>> with profits exceeding $10 million.
>>> Copyright C 2010 - The Register-Guard, Eugene, Oregon, USA
>>> -- 
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> GroveNet mailing list
>>> GroveNet at rdrop.com
>>> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> GroveNet mailing list
>> GroveNet at rdrop.com
>> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet



_______________________________________________
GroveNet mailing list
GroveNet at rdrop.com
http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet


_______________________________________________
GroveNet mailing list
GroveNet at rdrop.com
http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet


________________________________

From: Steven <NoSpam03 at comcast.net>
To: Forest Grove local interests list <grovenet at rdrop.com>
Sent: Sun, January 24, 2010 9:11:58 AM
Subject: Re: [Grovenet] An interesting view on 66 and 67 . . .



      

From jo.david at verizon.net  Sun Jan 24 09:31:35 2010
From: jo.david at verizon.net (David Morelli)
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 2010 09:31:35 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] Broken concrete
Message-ID: <BF8E4A70-1083-47A5-9AEA-8562BE840C24@verizon.net>

Seeing the piles of broken concrete left by the devastation in Haiti has reminded me of a home project that uses broken concrete.

Is anyone on grovenet dismantling a side walk or driveway?  I could use some broken concrete for a home project.

David


From osubuckeye59 at yahoo.com  Sun Jan 24 09:32:18 2010
From: osubuckeye59 at yahoo.com (Allen Warren)
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 2010 09:32:18 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [Grovenet] An interesting view on 66 and 67 . . .
In-Reply-To: <358463.58799.qm@web112411.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
References: <4B58B9D7.9010100@jurislex.com>
	<630873.58629.qm@web112115.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<6BF999DB-6607-4ED6-A74F-13B0ECF3B1D9@verizon.net>
	<BED3363A12A84F58996A83927A3F5F4D@JeffVAIO>
	<394798.3808.qm@web112416.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<2EAFFC35-81EA-4F8E-9AEB-6FB37A36A969@teleport.com>
	<001101ca9d18$57979bd0$06c6d370$@net>
	<358463.58799.qm@web112411.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <398610.51455.qm@web112113.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>

One important distinction about the effect of Measure 66 that I explained to a friend of mine at work last week who didn't realize it until I explained it to him.  And it makes sense when you think about it . . . 

Let's say an individual income is $175k.  The first $125k is taxed at the nominal 9% rate.  The 10.8% rate is only applied to anything above $125k, meaning the individual with $175k income will only be paying the higher income tax on $50k, not the entire $175k.

 
Allen Warren

From: Vickie Madeoneup <whatsupy2k at yahoo.com>

To: Forest Grove local interests list <grovenet at rdrop.com>
Sent: Sun, January 24, 2010 9:25:45 AM
Subject: Re: [Grovenet] An interesting view on 66 and 67 . . .

this is what drives me crazy about politics. I realize that one side does not want to 
provide the argument for the other side, but how about giving the people an accurate 
picture and letting us vote intelligently and informed without making it more complicated or
confusing than it needs to be.
 
I believe the current form of providing the "facts" is what makes people distrust politics
in the first place and to feel apathetic about any difference they can make.
My 2 cents
 
Vickie
And the vote Yes folks use $250,000 income as the tax level when it is
actually $125,000 for individuals. Bigger number sounds better.

If this is only a little increase, how will it reap hundreds of millions of
dollars? Mostly it will go to pay raises. Meanwhile many of us have cut
salaries to stay afloat.

-----Original Message-----
From: grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com [mailto:grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com] On
Behalf Of Walt Wentz
Sent: Sunday, January 24, 2010 8:48 AM
To: Forest Grove local interests list
Subject: Re: [Grovenet] An interesting view on 66 and 67 . . .

The "vote no" folks claim we will lose jobs because they know that is  
the greatest fear of most Oregonians. In other words, it's skillful  
manipulation of public fear, by the corporations who'd have to pay  
more in taxes. The incredible numbers they toss around are pulled out  
of body apertures by a corporate PR agency.
If the measures ARE defeated, some state services (education, health  
services, public safety) would have their funds cut still further,  
and then those services would have to cut employees... so we  
definitely WILL lose jobs, if 66 & 67 are defeated. We'll also lose  
more public services, especially when federal matching funds are lost  
due to cuts in the state budget.
Walt
On Jan 24, 2010, at 8:32 AM, Vickie Madeoneup wrote:

> I too am a bit confused by these 2 measures.
> The vote NO folks say we will loose jobs,
> the vote Yes folks say the minimum tax goes from
> $10 to $150.
>
> A business will not move because of $140 so I am
> missing something huge here.
>
> Anyone have any insights?
>
> Vickie
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Marian Cakarnis <oldredwagon at verizon.net>
> To: Forest Grove local interests list <grovenet at rdrop.com>
> Sent: Sat, January 23, 2010 9:51:40 AM
> Subject: Re: [Grovenet] An interesting view on 66 and 67 . . .
>
> I'm still thinking about all the implications of the passing of 67 and
> wonder about the sales tax 'feature'.  As I understand it,  
> companies with
> sales in excess of 500K in Oregon will be charged a tax -  
> essentially a
> sales tax.  I've always been an opponent to the sales tax, because  
> I can't
> fathom how much it will cost to set up a new infrastructure to  
> collect these
> taxes from consumers.
>
> Since measure 67 is essentially creating a sales tax, that will be  
> collected
> through our existing infrastructure, it seems far more efficient and
> cost-effective.  But, will this so-called sales tax also be  
> collected from
> out-of-state companies with sales in Oregon in excess of 500K?
>
> Probably a stupid question, but I wanted to understand it before  
> casting my
> vote.
>
> Marian
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------
> From: "Katie Allnutt" <allnutt at verizon.net>
> Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2010 5:43 PM
> To: "Forest Grove local interests list" <grovenet at rdrop.com>
> Subject: Re: [Grovenet] An interesting view on 66 and 67 . . .
>
>> Yep, and that good reason is they are the front line soldiers as the
>> jobs are shipped over seas, the economy falls apart and people need
>> help.
>> Their jobs are getting harder and they are taking furlough days
>> (losing pay), postponing increases (read both sides, not just the
>> sound bites) and they see the tragedies coming.
>>
>> We have given corporations huge liability protections just for
>> incorporating. We save them massive insurance costs by simply
>> sheltering their assets in lawsuits. Our tax laws give them
>> extraordinary loopholes to shelter income from taxes that regular
>> people don't get.  And for good reasons - we support businesses by
>> giving them a place to do business with courts that will protect
>> their interests. All these measures are doing is trimming one
>> loophole (tax on Oregon sales only - remember still no change to
>> taxes on out of state sales which is a HUGE loophole that remains)
>> and increasing the tiny minimum.  Did you know that before the great
>> depression the minimum corp tax was $25? During the depression it was
>> lowered to $10. If we were going to adjust it for inflation from its
>> pre depression $25 it would be $375.  And if you read the fine print
>> there are tons of protections for truly small businesses.
>>
>> Katie
>>
>>
>>
>> On Jan 21, 2010, at 4:59 PM, Allen Warren wrote:
>>
>>> As reported in the Oregonian this morning, http://
>>> www.oregonlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2010/01/public-
>>> employee_unions_flex_mu.html, there's a good reason "Public-
>>> employee unions have handily outspent business-backed foes in
>>> the campaign over two tax-raising measures on Tuesday's ballot."
>>>
>>> Here's another interesting view from the Wall Street Journal on our
>>> 2 tax measures: http://online.wsj.com/article/
>>> SB10001424052748704081704574652683989209884.html#printMode
>>>
>>>
>>> Allen Warren
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ________________________________
>>> From: Bob Browning <rab at jurislex.com>
>>> To: Grovenet <grovenet at rdrop.com>
>>> Sent: Thu, January 21, 2010 12:32:23 PM
>>> Subject: [Grovenet] An interesting view on 66 and 67 . . .
>>>
>>>
>>> The Register-Guard  http://www.registerguard.com/
>>> GUEST
>>> VIEWPOINT: Weighing measures 66 and 67
>>> By William Jaeger
>>> For The Register-Guard
>>> Posted to Web: Monday, Jan 11, 2010
>>> 11:41AM
>>> Appeared in print: Sunday, Jan 10, 2010, page G4
>>> Although some might have you
>>> believe otherwise, the economics behind Measures 66 and 67 - the tax
>>> referenda that Oregonians will be deciding over the next two weeks -
>>> actually are not that complicated. The main issues can be framed  
>>> as a
>>> benefit-cost analysis, where public services are the benefits and
>>> taxes
>>> are the costs.
>>> The economic question is equally
>>> simple, and perhaps more to the point: Do the measures' benefits
>>> outweigh their costs?
>>> The answer depends in part on how
>>> Oregon's taxes and public services compare to those of other states.
>>> Because Oregon competes with peers around the country in a  
>>> variety of
>>> ways to attract and retain businesses and to sell its products  
>>> around
>>> the world, we need to know whether Oregon taxes and public services
>>> are
>>> high or low compared to those in other states.
>>> Let's start with taxes.
>>> Oregon taxes as a share of personal
>>> income have been significantly below the national average for many
>>> years, and the gap has widened since the 1990s (see chart).
>>> The most recent data available show
>>> Oregon's state taxes at 5 percent of personal income, compared to a
>>> national average of 6 percent. When state and local taxes are
>>> combined,
>>> the relationship is about the same: Oregon's ranking is 44th out  
>>> of 50
>>> states in state taxes; 43rd in state and local taxes (which includes
>>> property taxes).
>>> You may hear that taxes have gone up by
>>> tens of billions of dollars in Oregon over the past few years. But
>>> this
>>> tells us little without adjusting for inflation, increasing  
>>> population
>>> or economic growth.
>>> The picture also would be misleading if
>>> we add fees to taxes or look at total state spending rather than
>>> taxes.
>>> Oregon has relatively high fees in some categories such as seaports,
>>> parks and recreation. But that is because, unlike most states,  
>>> Oregon
>>> has important international seaports, and some of the best
>>> recreational
>>> opportunities in the country. A large fraction of these fees are  
>>> paid
>>> by non-Oregonians, so they generate revenue without adding to the  
>>> "tax
>>> burden" of residents.
>>> What about business taxes?
>>> Businesses pay taxes in a variety of
>>> ways, including business property taxes, corporate income taxes,
>>> unemployment insurance taxes and individual income taxes paid by
>>> non-corporate businesses. In 2008, the international consulting firm
>>> Ernst & Young estimated state-level business taxes (as a share of
>>> state gross domestic product) and government expenditures benefiting
>>> businesses for all 50 states. The firm found that Oregon ranks dead
>>> last: the lowest net business taxes in the country.
>>> Let's turn to public services, where
>>> education is the largest budget category. Since the 1970s, Oregon  
>>> has
>>> fallen from mid-range to a dismal 49th out of 50 states in terms of
>>> average teacher-student ratio (see chart). Oregon also has the
>>> second-shortest school year in the country.
>>> Salaries and benefits at Oregon's
>>> universities are as much as 17 percent below the national average,
>>> making it much harder to attract and retain the best teachers and
>>> researchers. Tuition and fees at Oregon's public two-year  
>>> colleges are
>>> 29 percent higher than the national average.
>>> Have these trends in Oregon's
>>> educational system affected Oregon's labor force? Oregon has seen a
>>> decline in the number of college educated residents: A larger  
>>> fraction
>>> of older Oregonians (ages 55 to 64) have bachelor's degrees than do
>>> younger Oregonians (ages 25 to 34). The trend occurs at a time when
>>> the
>>> nation and the world are headed in the other direction.
>>> But are Oregon's public education funds
>>> spent efficiently? According to the U.S. Department of Education,
>>> Oregon spends 70 percent of education funds on instruction or  
>>> student
>>> services, comparable to the national average of 71 percent. A recent
>>> Rutgers University study shows that 11 out of 12 categories of  
>>> private
>>> schools had average expenditures per pupil that were similar to or
>>> higher than public schools.
>>> With this background, let's look at
>>> Measures 66 and 67. Measure 66 raises personal income taxes on
>>> high-income earners, those earning $125,000 individually or $250,000
>>> per household. Measure 67 raises corporate income taxes by $140 per
>>> year for most partnerships and corporations; for C-corporations with
>>> in-state sales above $500,000, the tax increase initially amounts to
>>> about 0.1 percent of gross sales.
>>> The third chart shows Oregon's tax
>>> burden by income group, and how that burden would change with  
>>> passage
>>> of these two measures. High-income groups would see their taxes
>>> rise on
>>> average by a small fraction. However, they still would pay a smaller
>>> share of their income in state and local taxes than would middle- or
>>> low-income households. Thus, Oregon's tax system still would be
>>> regressive overall.
>>> Let's look at the effect of these tax
>>> measures in the short run. President Obama has said, "The last thing
>>> you want to do in the middle of a recession is raise taxes." That's
>>> because nationally, Congress can pay for public services by  
>>> borrowing
>>> against future taxes. In Oregon, deficit financing is not  
>>> allowed, so
>>> the choice is between cutting public services and raising taxes.
>>> In this situation, most research
>>> clearly shows that raising taxes on high-income families will be  
>>> less
>>> harmful to a state's economy than reduced public services. So in a
>>> world of two bad choices, raising taxes on high-income households is
>>> "less bad" than further cuts to public services. It also is more
>>> equitable, since many of these public services support the less
>>> fortunate in our communities.
>>> Now, let's consider benefits versus
>>> costs in the long run.
>>> All tax increases represent a cost to
>>> the economy, but even with these two tax increases, Oregon still  
>>> would
>>> have a lower level of taxes than most other states. It is unlikely
>>> that
>>> these modest tax increases would discourage business owners, workers
>>> and other professionals from staying in or coming to Oregon, since
>>> most
>>> other states' taxes are higher.
>>> By contrast, the evidence of Oregon's
>>> declining public services, especially education, easily could
>>> discourage entrepreneurs and professionals from coming or staying.
>>> Business owners have families, and they have employees and  
>>> associates
>>> with families who will want to know whether the schools are good and
>>> the streets are safe.
>>> There is a wealth of economics
>>> literature on this topic - dozens of national studies that have  
>>> looked
>>> at state and local taxes, scouring the data for evidence of how to
>>> maximize benefits at the minimum cost. One recent summary of those
>>> studies concludes that "there is little evidence that state and  
>>> local
>>> tax cuts - when paid for by reducing public services - stimulate
>>> economic activity and create jobs," and that "increases in taxes,  
>>> when
>>> used to expand the quantity and quality of public services, can
>>> promote
>>> economic development and employment growth."
>>> Indeed, the long-term harm of having a
>>> labor force that is increasingly ill-equipped to compete in a global
>>> economy represents an unsustainable path for Oregon. Businesses can,
>>> and do, hire well-trained employees from outside Oregon, however.  
>>> Past
>>> studies have shown that newcomers to Oregon have more education than
>>> current residents, and as a result take the highest- paying jobs.
>>> So it
>>> may be that some businesses do not feel a need to pay to better
>>> educate
>>> Oregonians: They can hire workers with good educations from out of
>>> state.
>>> Explaining economic information and
>>> interpreting economic analysis for the general public is a  
>>> challenging
>>> part of my job as an Oregon State University professor and Extension
>>> Service policy specialist. Helping Oregonians understand objective
>>> economic information is made more difficult, however, when
>>> misinformation is labeled as economics.
>>> Professional standards in our field
>>> include a peer review process for quality control, and the backing
>>> of a
>>> well-established research institute, university or respected
>>> consulting
>>> firm. Research results always are made transparent, and data and
>>> methods are made available freely to other researchers who might  
>>> want
>>> to examine them in detail.
>>> Claims that 70,000 jobs will be lost
>>> due to the "job killing taxes" represented by Measures 66 and 67 are
>>> not based on estimates that conform to these standards of the
>>> economics
>>> profession. These estimates were not subjected to peer review - at
>>> least not voluntarily. When examined by nationally recognized  
>>> experts
>>> on state and local public finance at the Brookings Institution, the
>>> result was a scathing report concluding that the analyses were
>>> "without
>>> merit."
>>> The economists behind these job-killing
>>> estimates have failed to fully explain their methods. Indeed, months
>>> after presenting to voters their estimate of 70,000 lost jobs, they
>>> are
>>> now backtracking on these "guesstimates." They recently  
>>> substituted a
>>> new paper that purports to come to the same conclusions but using
>>> completely new data and different statistical methods. However, they
>>> have refused to make their new data and new methods available to  
>>> other
>>> economists or the public.
>>> In addition, these economists have
>>> misrepresented the conclusions of scholarly publications and
>>> institutions (including statements in the Oregon Voters' Pamphlet).
>>> Perhaps most tellingly, none of these economists is affiliated for
>>> purposes of this analysis with an institution with a reputation for
>>> unbiased research.
>>> Voters should understand that there is
>>> no exact way to estimate the long-term effects of changes in  
>>> taxes and
>>> public services on jobs and economic growth. The evidence from 30
>>> years
>>> of economic research, however, reinforces common sense: When your
>>> taxes
>>> and public services are among the lowest in the country, the  
>>> benefits
>>> from improving poor public services - especially education - are
>>> likely
>>> to outweigh the costs of modest increases in taxes.
>>> ________________________________
>>>
>>> THE MEASURES AT A GLANCE
>>> Measure 66: Raises
>>> the income tax rate on single filers' taxable income above $125,000
>>> and
>>> on joint filers' taxable income above $250,000.
>>> Measure 67: Replaces
>>> the current corporate minimum tax of $10 a year with a tiered  
>>> rate of
>>> between $150 and $100,000 a year. It also would temporarily increase
>>> the corporate tax rate for smaller businesses and permanently for
>>> those
>>> with profits exceeding $10 million.
>>> Copyright C 2010 - The Register-Guard, Eugene, Oregon, USA
>>> -- 
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> GroveNet mailing list
>>> GroveNet at rdrop.com
>>> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> GroveNet mailing list
>> GroveNet at rdrop.com
>> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet



_______________________________________________
GroveNet mailing list
GroveNet at rdrop.com
http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet


_______________________________________________
GroveNet mailing list
GroveNet at rdrop.com
http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet


________________________________

From: Steven <NoSpam03 at comcast.net>
To: Forest Grove local interests list <grovenet at rdrop.com>
Sent: Sun, January 24, 2010 9:11:58 AM
Subject: Re: [Grovenet] An interesting view on 66 and 67 . . .



      
_______________________________________________
GroveNet mailing list
GroveNet at rdrop.com
http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet



      

From waltw at teleport.com  Sun Jan 24 09:39:30 2010
From: waltw at teleport.com (Walt Wentz)
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 2010 09:39:30 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] An interesting view on 66 and 67 . . .
In-Reply-To: <001101ca9d18$57979bd0$06c6d370$@net>
References: <4B58B9D7.9010100@jurislex.com>	<630873.58629.qm@web112115.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>	<6BF999DB-6607-4ED6-A74F-13B0ECF3B1D9@verizon.net>	<BED3363A12A84F58996A83927A3F5F4D@JeffVAIO>	<394798.3808.qm@web112416.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<2EAFFC35-81EA-4F8E-9AEB-6FB37A36A969@teleport.com>
	<001101ca9d18$57979bd0$06c6d370$@net>
Message-ID: <235FFAE8-2560-4D59-A662-B3BED42CEE29@teleport.com>

The $250,000 cutoff is for couples filing joint returns, the $125,000  
for individual returns... and note, the "new" tax rates  apply to the  
portion of their incomes OVER those levels. Do you know any  
individual who makes more than $125,00 a year? Know any couple who  
makes more than $250,000? If so, you travel in rather exclusive  
circles, and  the minor difference that would make in their taxes is  
not going the send them screaming in panic to fire their employees.  
And the income from these tax measures, admittedly, will not even  
come close to filling the shortfall in the state's budget, which has  
already resulted in massive cuts in state services. The intent is  
merely to forestall further cuts-- and resultant further losses of jobs.
Walt
On Jan 24, 2010, at 9:11 AM, Steven wrote:

> And the vote Yes folks use $250,000 income as the tax level when it is
> actually $125,000 for individuals. Bigger number sounds better.
>
> If this is only a little increase, how will it reap hundreds of  
> millions of
> dollars? Mostly it will go to pay raises. Meanwhile many of us have  
> cut
> salaries to stay afloat.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com [mailto:grovenet- 
> bounces at rdrop.com] On
> Behalf Of Walt Wentz
> Sent: Sunday, January 24, 2010 8:48 AM
> To: Forest Grove local interests list
> Subject: Re: [Grovenet] An interesting view on 66 and 67 . . .
>
> The "vote no" folks claim we will lose jobs because they know that is
> the greatest fear of most Oregonians. In other words, it's skillful
> manipulation of public fear, by the corporations who'd have to pay
> more in taxes. The incredible numbers they toss around are pulled out
> of body apertures by a corporate PR agency.
> If the measures ARE defeated, some state services (education, health
> services, public safety) would have their funds cut still further,
> and then those services would have to cut employees... so we
> definitely WILL lose jobs, if 66 & 67 are defeated. We'll also lose
> more public services, especially when federal matching funds are lost
> due to cuts in the state budget.
> Walt
> On Jan 24, 2010, at 8:32 AM, Vickie Madeoneup wrote:
>
>> I too am a bit confused by these 2 measures.
>> The vote NO folks say we will loose jobs,
>> the vote Yes folks say the minimum tax goes from
>> $10 to $150.
>>
>> A business will not move because of $140 so I am
>> missing something huge here.
>>
>> Anyone have any insights?
>>
>> Vickie
>>
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: Marian Cakarnis <oldredwagon at verizon.net>
>> To: Forest Grove local interests list <grovenet at rdrop.com>
>> Sent: Sat, January 23, 2010 9:51:40 AM
>> Subject: Re: [Grovenet] An interesting view on 66 and 67 . . .
>>
>> I'm still thinking about all the implications of the passing of 67  
>> and
>> wonder about the sales tax 'feature'.  As I understand it,
>> companies with
>> sales in excess of 500K in Oregon will be charged a tax -
>> essentially a
>> sales tax.  I've always been an opponent to the sales tax, because
>> I can't
>> fathom how much it will cost to set up a new infrastructure to
>> collect these
>> taxes from consumers.
>>
>> Since measure 67 is essentially creating a sales tax, that will be
>> collected
>> through our existing infrastructure, it seems far more efficient and
>> cost-effective.  But, will this so-called sales tax also be
>> collected from
>> out-of-state companies with sales in Oregon in excess of 500K?
>>
>> Probably a stupid question, but I wanted to understand it before
>> casting my
>> vote.
>>
>> Marian
>>
>>
>> --------------------------------------------------
>> From: "Katie Allnutt" <allnutt at verizon.net>
>> Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2010 5:43 PM
>> To: "Forest Grove local interests list" <grovenet at rdrop.com>
>> Subject: Re: [Grovenet] An interesting view on 66 and 67 . . .
>>
>>> Yep, and that good reason is they are the front line soldiers as the
>>> jobs are shipped over seas, the economy falls apart and people need
>>> help.
>>> Their jobs are getting harder and they are taking furlough days
>>> (losing pay), postponing increases (read both sides, not just the
>>> sound bites) and they see the tragedies coming.
>>>
>>> We have given corporations huge liability protections just for
>>> incorporating. We save them massive insurance costs by simply
>>> sheltering their assets in lawsuits. Our tax laws give them
>>> extraordinary loopholes to shelter income from taxes that regular
>>> people don't get.  And for good reasons - we support businesses by
>>> giving them a place to do business with courts that will protect
>>> their interests. All these measures are doing is trimming one
>>> loophole (tax on Oregon sales only - remember still no change to
>>> taxes on out of state sales which is a HUGE loophole that remains)
>>> and increasing the tiny minimum.  Did you know that before the great
>>> depression the minimum corp tax was $25? During the depression it  
>>> was
>>> lowered to $10. If we were going to adjust it for inflation from its
>>> pre depression $25 it would be $375.  And if you read the fine print
>>> there are tons of protections for truly small businesses.
>>>
>>> Katie
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Jan 21, 2010, at 4:59 PM, Allen Warren wrote:
>>>
>>>> As reported in the Oregonian this morning, http://
>>>> www.oregonlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2010/01/public-
>>>> employee_unions_flex_mu.html, there's a good reason "Public-
>>>> employee unions have handily outspent business-backed foes in
>>>> the campaign over two tax-raising measures on Tuesday's ballot."
>>>>
>>>> Here's another interesting view from the Wall Street Journal on our
>>>> 2 tax measures: http://online.wsj.com/article/
>>>> SB10001424052748704081704574652683989209884.html#printMode
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Allen Warren
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ________________________________
>>>> From: Bob Browning <rab at jurislex.com>
>>>> To: Grovenet <grovenet at rdrop.com>
>>>> Sent: Thu, January 21, 2010 12:32:23 PM
>>>> Subject: [Grovenet] An interesting view on 66 and 67 . . .
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The Register-Guard  http://www.registerguard.com/
>>>> GUEST
>>>> VIEWPOINT: Weighing measures 66 and 67
>>>> By William Jaeger
>>>> For The Register-Guard
>>>> Posted to Web: Monday, Jan 11, 2010
>>>> 11:41AM
>>>> Appeared in print: Sunday, Jan 10, 2010, page G4
>>>> Although some might have you
>>>> believe otherwise, the economics behind Measures 66 and 67 - the  
>>>> tax
>>>> referenda that Oregonians will be deciding over the next two  
>>>> weeks -
>>>> actually are not that complicated. The main issues can be framed
>>>> as a
>>>> benefit-cost analysis, where public services are the benefits and
>>>> taxes
>>>> are the costs.
>>>> The economic question is equally
>>>> simple, and perhaps more to the point: Do the measures' benefits
>>>> outweigh their costs?
>>>> The answer depends in part on how
>>>> Oregon's taxes and public services compare to those of other  
>>>> states.
>>>> Because Oregon competes with peers around the country in a
>>>> variety of
>>>> ways to attract and retain businesses and to sell its products
>>>> around
>>>> the world, we need to know whether Oregon taxes and public services
>>>> are
>>>> high or low compared to those in other states.
>>>> Let's start with taxes.
>>>> Oregon taxes as a share of personal
>>>> income have been significantly below the national average for many
>>>> years, and the gap has widened since the 1990s (see chart).
>>>> The most recent data available show
>>>> Oregon's state taxes at 5 percent of personal income, compared to a
>>>> national average of 6 percent. When state and local taxes are
>>>> combined,
>>>> the relationship is about the same: Oregon's ranking is 44th out
>>>> of 50
>>>> states in state taxes; 43rd in state and local taxes (which  
>>>> includes
>>>> property taxes).
>>>> You may hear that taxes have gone up by
>>>> tens of billions of dollars in Oregon over the past few years. But
>>>> this
>>>> tells us little without adjusting for inflation, increasing
>>>> population
>>>> or economic growth.
>>>> The picture also would be misleading if
>>>> we add fees to taxes or look at total state spending rather than
>>>> taxes.
>>>> Oregon has relatively high fees in some categories such as  
>>>> seaports,
>>>> parks and recreation. But that is because, unlike most states,
>>>> Oregon
>>>> has important international seaports, and some of the best
>>>> recreational
>>>> opportunities in the country. A large fraction of these fees are
>>>> paid
>>>> by non-Oregonians, so they generate revenue without adding to the
>>>> "tax
>>>> burden" of residents.
>>>> What about business taxes?
>>>> Businesses pay taxes in a variety of
>>>> ways, including business property taxes, corporate income taxes,
>>>> unemployment insurance taxes and individual income taxes paid by
>>>> non-corporate businesses. In 2008, the international consulting  
>>>> firm
>>>> Ernst & Young estimated state-level business taxes (as a share of
>>>> state gross domestic product) and government expenditures  
>>>> benefiting
>>>> businesses for all 50 states. The firm found that Oregon ranks dead
>>>> last: the lowest net business taxes in the country.
>>>> Let's turn to public services, where
>>>> education is the largest budget category. Since the 1970s, Oregon
>>>> has
>>>> fallen from mid-range to a dismal 49th out of 50 states in terms of
>>>> average teacher-student ratio (see chart). Oregon also has the
>>>> second-shortest school year in the country.
>>>> Salaries and benefits at Oregon's
>>>> universities are as much as 17 percent below the national average,
>>>> making it much harder to attract and retain the best teachers and
>>>> researchers. Tuition and fees at Oregon's public two-year
>>>> colleges are
>>>> 29 percent higher than the national average.
>>>> Have these trends in Oregon's
>>>> educational system affected Oregon's labor force? Oregon has seen a
>>>> decline in the number of college educated residents: A larger
>>>> fraction
>>>> of older Oregonians (ages 55 to 64) have bachelor's degrees than do
>>>> younger Oregonians (ages 25 to 34). The trend occurs at a time when
>>>> the
>>>> nation and the world are headed in the other direction.
>>>> But are Oregon's public education funds
>>>> spent efficiently? According to the U.S. Department of Education,
>>>> Oregon spends 70 percent of education funds on instruction or
>>>> student
>>>> services, comparable to the national average of 71 percent. A  
>>>> recent
>>>> Rutgers University study shows that 11 out of 12 categories of
>>>> private
>>>> schools had average expenditures per pupil that were similar to or
>>>> higher than public schools.
>>>> With this background, let's look at
>>>> Measures 66 and 67. Measure 66 raises personal income taxes on
>>>> high-income earners, those earning $125,000 individually or  
>>>> $250,000
>>>> per household. Measure 67 raises corporate income taxes by $140 per
>>>> year for most partnerships and corporations; for C-corporations  
>>>> with
>>>> in-state sales above $500,000, the tax increase initially  
>>>> amounts to
>>>> about 0.1 percent of gross sales.
>>>> The third chart shows Oregon's tax
>>>> burden by income group, and how that burden would change with
>>>> passage
>>>> of these two measures. High-income groups would see their taxes
>>>> rise on
>>>> average by a small fraction. However, they still would pay a  
>>>> smaller
>>>> share of their income in state and local taxes than would  
>>>> middle- or
>>>> low-income households. Thus, Oregon's tax system still would be
>>>> regressive overall.
>>>> Let's look at the effect of these tax
>>>> measures in the short run. President Obama has said, "The last  
>>>> thing
>>>> you want to do in the middle of a recession is raise taxes." That's
>>>> because nationally, Congress can pay for public services by
>>>> borrowing
>>>> against future taxes. In Oregon, deficit financing is not
>>>> allowed, so
>>>> the choice is between cutting public services and raising taxes.
>>>> In this situation, most research
>>>> clearly shows that raising taxes on high-income families will be
>>>> less
>>>> harmful to a state's economy than reduced public services. So in a
>>>> world of two bad choices, raising taxes on high-income  
>>>> households is
>>>> "less bad" than further cuts to public services. It also is more
>>>> equitable, since many of these public services support the less
>>>> fortunate in our communities.
>>>> Now, let's consider benefits versus
>>>> costs in the long run.
>>>> All tax increases represent a cost to
>>>> the economy, but even with these two tax increases, Oregon still
>>>> would
>>>> have a lower level of taxes than most other states. It is unlikely
>>>> that
>>>> these modest tax increases would discourage business owners,  
>>>> workers
>>>> and other professionals from staying in or coming to Oregon, since
>>>> most
>>>> other states' taxes are higher.
>>>> By contrast, the evidence of Oregon's
>>>> declining public services, especially education, easily could
>>>> discourage entrepreneurs and professionals from coming or staying.
>>>> Business owners have families, and they have employees and
>>>> associates
>>>> with families who will want to know whether the schools are good  
>>>> and
>>>> the streets are safe.
>>>> There is a wealth of economics
>>>> literature on this topic - dozens of national studies that have
>>>> looked
>>>> at state and local taxes, scouring the data for evidence of how to
>>>> maximize benefits at the minimum cost. One recent summary of those
>>>> studies concludes that "there is little evidence that state and
>>>> local
>>>> tax cuts - when paid for by reducing public services - stimulate
>>>> economic activity and create jobs," and that "increases in taxes,
>>>> when
>>>> used to expand the quantity and quality of public services, can
>>>> promote
>>>> economic development and employment growth."
>>>> Indeed, the long-term harm of having a
>>>> labor force that is increasingly ill-equipped to compete in a  
>>>> global
>>>> economy represents an unsustainable path for Oregon. Businesses  
>>>> can,
>>>> and do, hire well-trained employees from outside Oregon, however.
>>>> Past
>>>> studies have shown that newcomers to Oregon have more education  
>>>> than
>>>> current residents, and as a result take the highest- paying jobs.
>>>> So it
>>>> may be that some businesses do not feel a need to pay to better
>>>> educate
>>>> Oregonians: They can hire workers with good educations from out of
>>>> state.
>>>> Explaining economic information and
>>>> interpreting economic analysis for the general public is a
>>>> challenging
>>>> part of my job as an Oregon State University professor and  
>>>> Extension
>>>> Service policy specialist. Helping Oregonians understand objective
>>>> economic information is made more difficult, however, when
>>>> misinformation is labeled as economics.
>>>> Professional standards in our field
>>>> include a peer review process for quality control, and the backing
>>>> of a
>>>> well-established research institute, university or respected
>>>> consulting
>>>> firm. Research results always are made transparent, and data and
>>>> methods are made available freely to other researchers who might
>>>> want
>>>> to examine them in detail.
>>>> Claims that 70,000 jobs will be lost
>>>> due to the "job killing taxes" represented by Measures 66 and 67  
>>>> are
>>>> not based on estimates that conform to these standards of the
>>>> economics
>>>> profession. These estimates were not subjected to peer review - at
>>>> least not voluntarily. When examined by nationally recognized
>>>> experts
>>>> on state and local public finance at the Brookings Institution, the
>>>> result was a scathing report concluding that the analyses were
>>>> "without
>>>> merit."
>>>> The economists behind these job-killing
>>>> estimates have failed to fully explain their methods. Indeed,  
>>>> months
>>>> after presenting to voters their estimate of 70,000 lost jobs, they
>>>> are
>>>> now backtracking on these "guesstimates." They recently
>>>> substituted a
>>>> new paper that purports to come to the same conclusions but using
>>>> completely new data and different statistical methods. However,  
>>>> they
>>>> have refused to make their new data and new methods available to
>>>> other
>>>> economists or the public.
>>>> In addition, these economists have
>>>> misrepresented the conclusions of scholarly publications and
>>>> institutions (including statements in the Oregon Voters' Pamphlet).
>>>> Perhaps most tellingly, none of these economists is affiliated for
>>>> purposes of this analysis with an institution with a reputation for
>>>> unbiased research.
>>>> Voters should understand that there is
>>>> no exact way to estimate the long-term effects of changes in
>>>> taxes and
>>>> public services on jobs and economic growth. The evidence from 30
>>>> years
>>>> of economic research, however, reinforces common sense: When your
>>>> taxes
>>>> and public services are among the lowest in the country, the
>>>> benefits
>>>> from improving poor public services - especially education - are
>>>> likely
>>>> to outweigh the costs of modest increases in taxes.
>>>> ________________________________
>>>>
>>>> THE MEASURES AT A GLANCE
>>>> Measure 66: Raises
>>>> the income tax rate on single filers' taxable income above $125,000
>>>> and
>>>> on joint filers' taxable income above $250,000.
>>>> Measure 67: Replaces
>>>> the current corporate minimum tax of $10 a year with a tiered
>>>> rate of
>>>> between $150 and $100,000 a year. It also would temporarily  
>>>> increase
>>>> the corporate tax rate for smaller businesses and permanently for
>>>> those
>>>> with profits exceeding $10 million.
>>>> Copyright C 2010 - The Register-Guard, Eugene, Oregon, USA
>>>> -- 
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> GroveNet mailing list
>>>> GroveNet at rdrop.com
>>>> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> GroveNet mailing list
>>> GroveNet at rdrop.com
>>> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> GroveNet mailing list
>> GroveNet at rdrop.com
>> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> GroveNet mailing list
>> GroveNet at rdrop.com
>> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet



From waltw at teleport.com  Sun Jan 24 09:44:50 2010
From: waltw at teleport.com (Walt Wentz)
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 2010 09:44:50 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] An interesting view on 66 and 67 . . .
In-Reply-To: <358463.58799.qm@web112411.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
References: <4B58B9D7.9010100@jurislex.com>
	<630873.58629.qm@web112115.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<6BF999DB-6607-4ED6-A74F-13B0ECF3B1D9@verizon.net>
	<BED3363A12A84F58996A83927A3F5F4D@JeffVAIO>
	<394798.3808.qm@web112416.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<2EAFFC35-81EA-4F8E-9AEB-6FB37A36A969@teleport.com>
	<001101ca9d18$57979bd0$06c6d370$@net>
	<358463.58799.qm@web112411.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <54D61FB7-D109-48CA-BAD0-BA878AC9EBCD@teleport.com>


On Jan 24, 2010, at 9:25 AM, Vickie Madeoneup wrote:

> this is what drives me crazy about politics. I realize that one  
> side does not want to
> provide the argument for the other side, but how about giving the  
> people an accurate
> picture and letting us vote intelligently and informed without  
> making it more complicated or
> confusing than it needs to be.

Try the League of Women Voters, AARP, the Oregonian's "Poltifact"  
feature, various other impartial agencies you might find on the Web.
>
> I believe the current form of providing the "facts" is what makes  
> people distrust politics
> in the first place and to feel apathetic about any difference they  
> can make.

Abso-bloody-lutely! The huge "think tanks," "Astroturf" movements and  
PACs funded by the political parties, the "spinmeisters" and yell- 
radio hosts supported by them, and the newspapers desperately trying  
to avoid alienating corporate advertisers-- all combine to obfuscate  
the facts and confuse the public.
Walt

> My 2 cents
>
> Vickie
> And the vote Yes folks use $250,000 income as the tax level when it is
> actually $125,000 for individuals. Bigger number sounds better.
>
> If this is only a little increase, how will it reap hundreds of  
> millions of
> dollars? Mostly it will go to pay raises. Meanwhile many of us have  
> cut
> salaries to stay afloat.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com [mailto:grovenet- 
> bounces at rdrop.com] On
> Behalf Of Walt Wentz
> Sent: Sunday, January 24, 2010 8:48 AM
> To: Forest Grove local interests list
> Subject: Re: [Grovenet] An interesting view on 66 and 67 . . .
>
> The "vote no" folks claim we will lose jobs because they know that is
> the greatest fear of most Oregonians. In other words, it's skillful
> manipulation of public fear, by the corporations who'd have to pay
> more in taxes. The incredible numbers they toss around are pulled out
> of body apertures by a corporate PR agency.
> If the measures ARE defeated, some state services (education, health
> services, public safety) would have their funds cut still further,
> and then those services would have to cut employees... so we
> definitely WILL lose jobs, if 66 & 67 are defeated. We'll also lose
> more public services, especially when federal matching funds are lost
> due to cuts in the state budget.
> Walt
> On Jan 24, 2010, at 8:32 AM, Vickie Madeoneup wrote:
>
>> I too am a bit confused by these 2 measures.
>> The vote NO folks say we will loose jobs,
>> the vote Yes folks say the minimum tax goes from
>> $10 to $150.
>>
>> A business will not move because of $140 so I am
>> missing something huge here.
>>
>> Anyone have any insights?
>>
>> Vickie
>>
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: Marian Cakarnis <oldredwagon at verizon.net>
>> To: Forest Grove local interests list <grovenet at rdrop.com>
>> Sent: Sat, January 23, 2010 9:51:40 AM
>> Subject: Re: [Grovenet] An interesting view on 66 and 67 . . .
>>
>> I'm still thinking about all the implications of the passing of 67  
>> and
>> wonder about the sales tax 'feature'.  As I understand it,
>> companies with
>> sales in excess of 500K in Oregon will be charged a tax -
>> essentially a
>> sales tax.  I've always been an opponent to the sales tax, because
>> I can't
>> fathom how much it will cost to set up a new infrastructure to
>> collect these
>> taxes from consumers.
>>
>> Since measure 67 is essentially creating a sales tax, that will be
>> collected
>> through our existing infrastructure, it seems far more efficient and
>> cost-effective.  But, will this so-called sales tax also be
>> collected from
>> out-of-state companies with sales in Oregon in excess of 500K?
>>
>> Probably a stupid question, but I wanted to understand it before
>> casting my
>> vote.
>>
>> Marian
>>
>>
>> --------------------------------------------------
>> From: "Katie Allnutt" <allnutt at verizon.net>
>> Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2010 5:43 PM
>> To: "Forest Grove local interests list" <grovenet at rdrop.com>
>> Subject: Re: [Grovenet] An interesting view on 66 and 67 . . .
>>
>>> Yep, and that good reason is they are the front line soldiers as the
>>> jobs are shipped over seas, the economy falls apart and people need
>>> help.
>>> Their jobs are getting harder and they are taking furlough days
>>> (losing pay), postponing increases (read both sides, not just the
>>> sound bites) and they see the tragedies coming.
>>>
>>> We have given corporations huge liability protections just for
>>> incorporating. We save them massive insurance costs by simply
>>> sheltering their assets in lawsuits. Our tax laws give them
>>> extraordinary loopholes to shelter income from taxes that regular
>>> people don't get.  And for good reasons - we support businesses by
>>> giving them a place to do business with courts that will protect
>>> their interests. All these measures are doing is trimming one
>>> loophole (tax on Oregon sales only - remember still no change to
>>> taxes on out of state sales which is a HUGE loophole that remains)
>>> and increasing the tiny minimum.  Did you know that before the great
>>> depression the minimum corp tax was $25? During the depression it  
>>> was
>>> lowered to $10. If we were going to adjust it for inflation from its
>>> pre depression $25 it would be $375.  And if you read the fine print
>>> there are tons of protections for truly small businesses.
>>>
>>> Katie
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Jan 21, 2010, at 4:59 PM, Allen Warren wrote:
>>>
>>>> As reported in the Oregonian this morning, http://
>>>> www.oregonlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2010/01/public-
>>>> employee_unions_flex_mu.html, there's a good reason "Public-
>>>> employee unions have handily outspent business-backed foes in
>>>> the campaign over two tax-raising measures on Tuesday's ballot."
>>>>
>>>> Here's another interesting view from the Wall Street Journal on our
>>>> 2 tax measures: http://online.wsj.com/article/
>>>> SB10001424052748704081704574652683989209884.html#printMode
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Allen Warren
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ________________________________
>>>> From: Bob Browning <rab at jurislex.com>
>>>> To: Grovenet <grovenet at rdrop.com>
>>>> Sent: Thu, January 21, 2010 12:32:23 PM
>>>> Subject: [Grovenet] An interesting view on 66 and 67 . . .
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The Register-Guard  http://www.registerguard.com/
>>>> GUEST
>>>> VIEWPOINT: Weighing measures 66 and 67
>>>> By William Jaeger
>>>> For The Register-Guard
>>>> Posted to Web: Monday, Jan 11, 2010
>>>> 11:41AM
>>>> Appeared in print: Sunday, Jan 10, 2010, page G4
>>>> Although some might have you
>>>> believe otherwise, the economics behind Measures 66 and 67 - the  
>>>> tax
>>>> referenda that Oregonians will be deciding over the next two  
>>>> weeks -
>>>> actually are not that complicated. The main issues can be framed
>>>> as a
>>>> benefit-cost analysis, where public services are the benefits and
>>>> taxes
>>>> are the costs.
>>>> The economic question is equally
>>>> simple, and perhaps more to the point: Do the measures' benefits
>>>> outweigh their costs?
>>>> The answer depends in part on how
>>>> Oregon's taxes and public services compare to those of other  
>>>> states.
>>>> Because Oregon competes with peers around the country in a
>>>> variety of
>>>> ways to attract and retain businesses and to sell its products
>>>> around
>>>> the world, we need to know whether Oregon taxes and public services
>>>> are
>>>> high or low compared to those in other states.
>>>> Let's start with taxes.
>>>> Oregon taxes as a share of personal
>>>> income have been significantly below the national average for many
>>>> years, and the gap has widened since the 1990s (see chart).
>>>> The most recent data available show
>>>> Oregon's state taxes at 5 percent of personal income, compared to a
>>>> national average of 6 percent. When state and local taxes are
>>>> combined,
>>>> the relationship is about the same: Oregon's ranking is 44th out
>>>> of 50
>>>> states in state taxes; 43rd in state and local taxes (which  
>>>> includes
>>>> property taxes).
>>>> You may hear that taxes have gone up by
>>>> tens of billions of dollars in Oregon over the past few years. But
>>>> this
>>>> tells us little without adjusting for inflation, increasing
>>>> population
>>>> or economic growth.
>>>> The picture also would be misleading if
>>>> we add fees to taxes or look at total state spending rather than
>>>> taxes.
>>>> Oregon has relatively high fees in some categories such as  
>>>> seaports,
>>>> parks and recreation. But that is because, unlike most states,
>>>> Oregon
>>>> has important international seaports, and some of the best
>>>> recreational
>>>> opportunities in the country. A large fraction of these fees are
>>>> paid
>>>> by non-Oregonians, so they generate revenue without adding to the
>>>> "tax
>>>> burden" of residents.
>>>> What about business taxes?
>>>> Businesses pay taxes in a variety of
>>>> ways, including business property taxes, corporate income taxes,
>>>> unemployment insurance taxes and individual income taxes paid by
>>>> non-corporate businesses. In 2008, the international consulting  
>>>> firm
>>>> Ernst & Young estimated state-level business taxes (as a share of
>>>> state gross domestic product) and government expenditures  
>>>> benefiting
>>>> businesses for all 50 states. The firm found that Oregon ranks dead
>>>> last: the lowest net business taxes in the country.
>>>> Let's turn to public services, where
>>>> education is the largest budget category. Since the 1970s, Oregon
>>>> has
>>>> fallen from mid-range to a dismal 49th out of 50 states in terms of
>>>> average teacher-student ratio (see chart). Oregon also has the
>>>> second-shortest school year in the country.
>>>> Salaries and benefits at Oregon's
>>>> universities are as much as 17 percent below the national average,
>>>> making it much harder to attract and retain the best teachers and
>>>> researchers. Tuition and fees at Oregon's public two-year
>>>> colleges are
>>>> 29 percent higher than the national average.
>>>> Have these trends in Oregon's
>>>> educational system affected Oregon's labor force? Oregon has seen a
>>>> decline in the number of college educated residents: A larger
>>>> fraction
>>>> of older Oregonians (ages 55 to 64) have bachelor's degrees than do
>>>> younger Oregonians (ages 25 to 34). The trend occurs at a time when
>>>> the
>>>> nation and the world are headed in the other direction.
>>>> But are Oregon's public education funds
>>>> spent efficiently? According to the U.S. Department of Education,
>>>> Oregon spends 70 percent of education funds on instruction or
>>>> student
>>>> services, comparable to the national average of 71 percent. A  
>>>> recent
>>>> Rutgers University study shows that 11 out of 12 categories of
>>>> private
>>>> schools had average expenditures per pupil that were similar to or
>>>> higher than public schools.
>>>> With this background, let's look at
>>>> Measures 66 and 67. Measure 66 raises personal income taxes on
>>>> high-income earners, those earning $125,000 individually or  
>>>> $250,000
>>>> per household. Measure 67 raises corporate income taxes by $140 per
>>>> year for most partnerships and corporations; for C-corporations  
>>>> with
>>>> in-state sales above $500,000, the tax increase initially  
>>>> amounts to
>>>> about 0.1 percent of gross sales.
>>>> The third chart shows Oregon's tax
>>>> burden by income group, and how that burden would change with
>>>> passage
>>>> of these two measures. High-income groups would see their taxes
>>>> rise on
>>>> average by a small fraction. However, they still would pay a  
>>>> smaller
>>>> share of their income in state and local taxes than would  
>>>> middle- or
>>>> low-income households. Thus, Oregon's tax system still would be
>>>> regressive overall.
>>>> Let's look at the effect of these tax
>>>> measures in the short run. President Obama has said, "The last  
>>>> thing
>>>> you want to do in the middle of a recession is raise taxes." That's
>>>> because nationally, Congress can pay for public services by
>>>> borrowing
>>>> against future taxes. In Oregon, deficit financing is not
>>>> allowed, so
>>>> the choice is between cutting public services and raising taxes.
>>>> In this situation, most research
>>>> clearly shows that raising taxes on high-income families will be
>>>> less
>>>> harmful to a state's economy than reduced public services. So in a
>>>> world of two bad choices, raising taxes on high-income  
>>>> households is
>>>> "less bad" than further cuts to public services. It also is more
>>>> equitable, since many of these public services support the less
>>>> fortunate in our communities.
>>>> Now, let's consider benefits versus
>>>> costs in the long run.
>>>> All tax increases represent a cost to
>>>> the economy, but even with these two tax increases, Oregon still
>>>> would
>>>> have a lower level of taxes than most other states. It is unlikely
>>>> that
>>>> these modest tax increases would discourage business owners,  
>>>> workers
>>>> and other professionals from staying in or coming to Oregon, since
>>>> most
>>>> other states' taxes are higher.
>>>> By contrast, the evidence of Oregon's
>>>> declining public services, especially education, easily could
>>>> discourage entrepreneurs and professionals from coming or staying.
>>>> Business owners have families, and they have employees and
>>>> associates
>>>> with families who will want to know whether the schools are good  
>>>> and
>>>> the streets are safe.
>>>> There is a wealth of economics
>>>> literature on this topic - dozens of national studies that have
>>>> looked
>>>> at state and local taxes, scouring the data for evidence of how to
>>>> maximize benefits at the minimum cost. One recent summary of those
>>>> studies concludes that "there is little evidence that state and
>>>> local
>>>> tax cuts - when paid for by reducing public services - stimulate
>>>> economic activity and create jobs," and that "increases in taxes,
>>>> when
>>>> used to expand the quantity and quality of public services, can
>>>> promote
>>>> economic development and employment growth."
>>>> Indeed, the long-term harm of having a
>>>> labor force that is increasingly ill-equipped to compete in a  
>>>> global
>>>> economy represents an unsustainable path for Oregon. Businesses  
>>>> can,
>>>> and do, hire well-trained employees from outside Oregon, however.
>>>> Past
>>>> studies have shown that newcomers to Oregon have more education  
>>>> than
>>>> current residents, and as a result take the highest- paying jobs.
>>>> So it
>>>> may be that some businesses do not feel a need to pay to better
>>>> educate
>>>> Oregonians: They can hire workers with good educations from out of
>>>> state.
>>>> Explaining economic information and
>>>> interpreting economic analysis for the general public is a
>>>> challenging
>>>> part of my job as an Oregon State University professor and  
>>>> Extension
>>>> Service policy specialist. Helping Oregonians understand objective
>>>> economic information is made more difficult, however, when
>>>> misinformation is labeled as economics.
>>>> Professional standards in our field
>>>> include a peer review process for quality control, and the backing
>>>> of a
>>>> well-established research institute, university or respected
>>>> consulting
>>>> firm. Research results always are made transparent, and data and
>>>> methods are made available freely to other researchers who might
>>>> want
>>>> to examine them in detail.
>>>> Claims that 70,000 jobs will be lost
>>>> due to the "job killing taxes" represented by Measures 66 and 67  
>>>> are
>>>> not based on estimates that conform to these standards of the
>>>> economics
>>>> profession. These estimates were not subjected to peer review - at
>>>> least not voluntarily. When examined by nationally recognized
>>>> experts
>>>> on state and local public finance at the Brookings Institution, the
>>>> result was a scathing report concluding that the analyses were
>>>> "without
>>>> merit."
>>>> The economists behind these job-killing
>>>> estimates have failed to fully explain their methods. Indeed,  
>>>> months
>>>> after presenting to voters their estimate of 70,000 lost jobs, they
>>>> are
>>>> now backtracking on these "guesstimates." They recently
>>>> substituted a
>>>> new paper that purports to come to the same conclusions but using
>>>> completely new data and different statistical methods. However,  
>>>> they
>>>> have refused to make their new data and new methods available to
>>>> other
>>>> economists or the public.
>>>> In addition, these economists have
>>>> misrepresented the conclusions of scholarly publications and
>>>> institutions (including statements in the Oregon Voters' Pamphlet).
>>>> Perhaps most tellingly, none of these economists is affiliated for
>>>> purposes of this analysis with an institution with a reputation for
>>>> unbiased research.
>>>> Voters should understand that there is
>>>> no exact way to estimate the long-term effects of changes in
>>>> taxes and
>>>> public services on jobs and economic growth. The evidence from 30
>>>> years
>>>> of economic research, however, reinforces common sense: When your
>>>> taxes
>>>> and public services are among the lowest in the country, the
>>>> benefits
>>>> from improving poor public services - especially education - are
>>>> likely
>>>> to outweigh the costs of modest increases in taxes.
>>>> ________________________________
>>>>
>>>> THE MEASURES AT A GLANCE
>>>> Measure 66: Raises
>>>> the income tax rate on single filers' taxable income above $125,000
>>>> and
>>>> on joint filers' taxable income above $250,000.
>>>> Measure 67: Replaces
>>>> the current corporate minimum tax of $10 a year with a tiered
>>>> rate of
>>>> between $150 and $100,000 a year. It also would temporarily  
>>>> increase
>>>> the corporate tax rate for smaller businesses and permanently for
>>>> those
>>>> with profits exceeding $10 million.
>>>> Copyright C 2010 - The Register-Guard, Eugene, Oregon, USA
>>>> -- 
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> GroveNet mailing list
>>>> GroveNet at rdrop.com
>>>> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> GroveNet mailing list
>>> GroveNet at rdrop.com
>>> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> GroveNet mailing list
>> GroveNet at rdrop.com
>> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> GroveNet mailing list
>> GroveNet at rdrop.com
>> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: Steven <NoSpam03 at comcast.net>
> To: Forest Grove local interests list <grovenet at rdrop.com>
> Sent: Sun, January 24, 2010 9:11:58 AM
> Subject: Re: [Grovenet] An interesting view on 66 and 67 . . .
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet



From waltw at teleport.com  Sun Jan 24 09:47:30 2010
From: waltw at teleport.com (Walt Wentz)
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 2010 09:47:30 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] An interesting view on 66 and 67 . . .
In-Reply-To: <398610.51455.qm@web112113.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
References: <4B58B9D7.9010100@jurislex.com>
	<630873.58629.qm@web112115.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<6BF999DB-6607-4ED6-A74F-13B0ECF3B1D9@verizon.net>
	<BED3363A12A84F58996A83927A3F5F4D@JeffVAIO>
	<394798.3808.qm@web112416.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<2EAFFC35-81EA-4F8E-9AEB-6FB37A36A969@teleport.com>
	<001101ca9d18$57979bd0$06c6d370$@net>
	<358463.58799.qm@web112411.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<398610.51455.qm@web112113.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <AD866E31-70FD-414C-9EFB-FC847744538A@teleport.com>

Right. But the highest income people and companies do not pay the 9  
percent rate working people do-- with access to skillful tax  
attorneys and special deals, they pay more like 6.5 percent. So the  
tax measures are just a baby step toward equality.

On Jan 24, 2010, at 9:32 AM, Allen Warren wrote:

> One important distinction about the effect of Measure 66 that I  
> explained to a friend of mine at work last week who didn't realize  
> it until I explained it to him.  And it makes sense when you think  
> about it . . .
>
> Let's say an individual income is $175k.  The first $125k is taxed  
> at the nominal 9% rate.  The 10.8% rate is only applied to anything  
> above $125k, meaning the individual with $175k income will only be  
> paying the higher income tax on $50k, not the entire $175k.
>
>
> Allen Warren
>
> From: Vickie Madeoneup <whatsupy2k at yahoo.com>
>
> To: Forest Grove local interests list <grovenet at rdrop.com>
> Sent: Sun, January 24, 2010 9:25:45 AM
> Subject: Re: [Grovenet] An interesting view on 66 and 67 . . .
>
> this is what drives me crazy about politics. I realize that one  
> side does not want to
> provide the argument for the other side, but how about giving the  
> people an accurate
> picture and letting us vote intelligently and informed without  
> making it more complicated or
> confusing than it needs to be.
>
> I believe the current form of providing the "facts" is what makes  
> people distrust politics
> in the first place and to feel apathetic about any difference they  
> can make.
> My 2 cents
>
> Vickie
> And the vote Yes folks use $250,000 income as the tax level when it is
> actually $125,000 for individuals. Bigger number sounds better.
>
> If this is only a little increase, how will it reap hundreds of  
> millions of
> dollars? Mostly it will go to pay raises. Meanwhile many of us have  
> cut
> salaries to stay afloat.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com [mailto:grovenet- 
> bounces at rdrop.com] On
> Behalf Of Walt Wentz
> Sent: Sunday, January 24, 2010 8:48 AM
> To: Forest Grove local interests list
> Subject: Re: [Grovenet] An interesting view on 66 and 67 . . .
>
> The "vote no" folks claim we will lose jobs because they know that is
> the greatest fear of most Oregonians. In other words, it's skillful
> manipulation of public fear, by the corporations who'd have to pay
> more in taxes. The incredible numbers they toss around are pulled out
> of body apertures by a corporate PR agency.
> If the measures ARE defeated, some state services (education, health
> services, public safety) would have their funds cut still further,
> and then those services would have to cut employees... so we
> definitely WILL lose jobs, if 66 & 67 are defeated. We'll also lose
> more public services, especially when federal matching funds are lost
> due to cuts in the state budget.
> Walt
> On Jan 24, 2010, at 8:32 AM, Vickie Madeoneup wrote:
>
>> I too am a bit confused by these 2 measures.
>> The vote NO folks say we will loose jobs,
>> the vote Yes folks say the minimum tax goes from
>> $10 to $150.
>>
>> A business will not move because of $140 so I am
>> missing something huge here.
>>
>> Anyone have any insights?
>>
>> Vickie
>>
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: Marian Cakarnis <oldredwagon at verizon.net>
>> To: Forest Grove local interests list <grovenet at rdrop.com>
>> Sent: Sat, January 23, 2010 9:51:40 AM
>> Subject: Re: [Grovenet] An interesting view on 66 and 67 . . .
>>
>> I'm still thinking about all the implications of the passing of 67  
>> and
>> wonder about the sales tax 'feature'.  As I understand it,
>> companies with
>> sales in excess of 500K in Oregon will be charged a tax -
>> essentially a
>> sales tax.  I've always been an opponent to the sales tax, because
>> I can't
>> fathom how much it will cost to set up a new infrastructure to
>> collect these
>> taxes from consumers.
>>
>> Since measure 67 is essentially creating a sales tax, that will be
>> collected
>> through our existing infrastructure, it seems far more efficient and
>> cost-effective.  But, will this so-called sales tax also be
>> collected from
>> out-of-state companies with sales in Oregon in excess of 500K?
>>
>> Probably a stupid question, but I wanted to understand it before
>> casting my
>> vote.
>>
>> Marian
>>
>>
>> --------------------------------------------------
>> From: "Katie Allnutt" <allnutt at verizon.net>
>> Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2010 5:43 PM
>> To: "Forest Grove local interests list" <grovenet at rdrop.com>
>> Subject: Re: [Grovenet] An interesting view on 66 and 67 . . .
>>
>>> Yep, and that good reason is they are the front line soldiers as the
>>> jobs are shipped over seas, the economy falls apart and people need
>>> help.
>>> Their jobs are getting harder and they are taking furlough days
>>> (losing pay), postponing increases (read both sides, not just the
>>> sound bites) and they see the tragedies coming.
>>>
>>> We have given corporations huge liability protections just for
>>> incorporating. We save them massive insurance costs by simply
>>> sheltering their assets in lawsuits. Our tax laws give them
>>> extraordinary loopholes to shelter income from taxes that regular
>>> people don't get.  And for good reasons - we support businesses by
>>> giving them a place to do business with courts that will protect
>>> their interests. All these measures are doing is trimming one
>>> loophole (tax on Oregon sales only - remember still no change to
>>> taxes on out of state sales which is a HUGE loophole that remains)
>>> and increasing the tiny minimum.  Did you know that before the great
>>> depression the minimum corp tax was $25? During the depression it  
>>> was
>>> lowered to $10. If we were going to adjust it for inflation from its
>>> pre depression $25 it would be $375.  And if you read the fine print
>>> there are tons of protections for truly small businesses.
>>>
>>> Katie
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Jan 21, 2010, at 4:59 PM, Allen Warren wrote:
>>>
>>>> As reported in the Oregonian this morning, http://
>>>> www.oregonlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2010/01/public-
>>>> employee_unions_flex_mu.html, there's a good reason "Public-
>>>> employee unions have handily outspent business-backed foes in
>>>> the campaign over two tax-raising measures on Tuesday's ballot."
>>>>
>>>> Here's another interesting view from the Wall Street Journal on our
>>>> 2 tax measures: http://online.wsj.com/article/
>>>> SB10001424052748704081704574652683989209884.html#printMode
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Allen Warren
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ________________________________
>>>> From: Bob Browning <rab at jurislex.com>
>>>> To: Grovenet <grovenet at rdrop.com>
>>>> Sent: Thu, January 21, 2010 12:32:23 PM
>>>> Subject: [Grovenet] An interesting view on 66 and 67 . . .
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The Register-Guard  http://www.registerguard.com/
>>>> GUEST
>>>> VIEWPOINT: Weighing measures 66 and 67
>>>> By William Jaeger
>>>> For The Register-Guard
>>>> Posted to Web: Monday, Jan 11, 2010
>>>> 11:41AM
>>>> Appeared in print: Sunday, Jan 10, 2010, page G4
>>>> Although some might have you
>>>> believe otherwise, the economics behind Measures 66 and 67 - the  
>>>> tax
>>>> referenda that Oregonians will be deciding over the next two  
>>>> weeks -
>>>> actually are not that complicated. The main issues can be framed
>>>> as a
>>>> benefit-cost analysis, where public services are the benefits and
>>>> taxes
>>>> are the costs.
>>>> The economic question is equally
>>>> simple, and perhaps more to the point: Do the measures' benefits
>>>> outweigh their costs?
>>>> The answer depends in part on how
>>>> Oregon's taxes and public services compare to those of other  
>>>> states.
>>>> Because Oregon competes with peers around the country in a
>>>> variety of
>>>> ways to attract and retain businesses and to sell its products
>>>> around
>>>> the world, we need to know whether Oregon taxes and public services
>>>> are
>>>> high or low compared to those in other states.
>>>> Let's start with taxes.
>>>> Oregon taxes as a share of personal
>>>> income have been significantly below the national average for many
>>>> years, and the gap has widened since the 1990s (see chart).
>>>> The most recent data available show
>>>> Oregon's state taxes at 5 percent of personal income, compared to a
>>>> national average of 6 percent. When state and local taxes are
>>>> combined,
>>>> the relationship is about the same: Oregon's ranking is 44th out
>>>> of 50
>>>> states in state taxes; 43rd in state and local taxes (which  
>>>> includes
>>>> property taxes).
>>>> You may hear that taxes have gone up by
>>>> tens of billions of dollars in Oregon over the past few years. But
>>>> this
>>>> tells us little without adjusting for inflation, increasing
>>>> population
>>>> or economic growth.
>>>> The picture also would be misleading if
>>>> we add fees to taxes or look at total state spending rather than
>>>> taxes.
>>>> Oregon has relatively high fees in some categories such as  
>>>> seaports,
>>>> parks and recreation. But that is because, unlike most states,
>>>> Oregon
>>>> has important international seaports, and some of the best
>>>> recreational
>>>> opportunities in the country. A large fraction of these fees are
>>>> paid
>>>> by non-Oregonians, so they generate revenue without adding to the
>>>> "tax
>>>> burden" of residents.
>>>> What about business taxes?
>>>> Businesses pay taxes in a variety of
>>>> ways, including business property taxes, corporate income taxes,
>>>> unemployment insurance taxes and individual income taxes paid by
>>>> non-corporate businesses. In 2008, the international consulting  
>>>> firm
>>>> Ernst & Young estimated state-level business taxes (as a share of
>>>> state gross domestic product) and government expenditures  
>>>> benefiting
>>>> businesses for all 50 states. The firm found that Oregon ranks dead
>>>> last: the lowest net business taxes in the country.
>>>> Let's turn to public services, where
>>>> education is the largest budget category. Since the 1970s, Oregon
>>>> has
>>>> fallen from mid-range to a dismal 49th out of 50 states in terms of
>>>> average teacher-student ratio (see chart). Oregon also has the
>>>> second-shortest school year in the country.
>>>> Salaries and benefits at Oregon's
>>>> universities are as much as 17 percent below the national average,
>>>> making it much harder to attract and retain the best teachers and
>>>> researchers. Tuition and fees at Oregon's public two-year
>>>> colleges are
>>>> 29 percent higher than the national average.
>>>> Have these trends in Oregon's
>>>> educational system affected Oregon's labor force? Oregon has seen a
>>>> decline in the number of college educated residents: A larger
>>>> fraction
>>>> of older Oregonians (ages 55 to 64) have bachelor's degrees than do
>>>> younger Oregonians (ages 25 to 34). The trend occurs at a time when
>>>> the
>>>> nation and the world are headed in the other direction.
>>>> But are Oregon's public education funds
>>>> spent efficiently? According to the U.S. Department of Education,
>>>> Oregon spends 70 percent of education funds on instruction or
>>>> student
>>>> services, comparable to the national average of 71 percent. A  
>>>> recent
>>>> Rutgers University study shows that 11 out of 12 categories of
>>>> private
>>>> schools had average expenditures per pupil that were similar to or
>>>> higher than public schools.
>>>> With this background, let's look at
>>>> Measures 66 and 67. Measure 66 raises personal income taxes on
>>>> high-income earners, those earning $125,000 individually or  
>>>> $250,000
>>>> per household. Measure 67 raises corporate income taxes by $140 per
>>>> year for most partnerships and corporations; for C-corporations  
>>>> with
>>>> in-state sales above $500,000, the tax increase initially  
>>>> amounts to
>>>> about 0.1 percent of gross sales.
>>>> The third chart shows Oregon's tax
>>>> burden by income group, and how that burden would change with
>>>> passage
>>>> of these two measures. High-income groups would see their taxes
>>>> rise on
>>>> average by a small fraction. However, they still would pay a  
>>>> smaller
>>>> share of their income in state and local taxes than would  
>>>> middle- or
>>>> low-income households. Thus, Oregon's tax system still would be
>>>> regressive overall.
>>>> Let's look at the effect of these tax
>>>> measures in the short run. President Obama has said, "The last  
>>>> thing
>>>> you want to do in the middle of a recession is raise taxes." That's
>>>> because nationally, Congress can pay for public services by
>>>> borrowing
>>>> against future taxes. In Oregon, deficit financing is not
>>>> allowed, so
>>>> the choice is between cutting public services and raising taxes.
>>>> In this situation, most research
>>>> clearly shows that raising taxes on high-income families will be
>>>> less
>>>> harmful to a state's economy than reduced public services. So in a
>>>> world of two bad choices, raising taxes on high-income  
>>>> households is
>>>> "less bad" than further cuts to public services. It also is more
>>>> equitable, since many of these public services support the less
>>>> fortunate in our communities.
>>>> Now, let's consider benefits versus
>>>> costs in the long run.
>>>> All tax increases represent a cost to
>>>> the economy, but even with these two tax increases, Oregon still
>>>> would
>>>> have a lower level of taxes than most other states. It is unlikely
>>>> that
>>>> these modest tax increases would discourage business owners,  
>>>> workers
>>>> and other professionals from staying in or coming to Oregon, since
>>>> most
>>>> other states' taxes are higher.
>>>> By contrast, the evidence of Oregon's
>>>> declining public services, especially education, easily could
>>>> discourage entrepreneurs and professionals from coming or staying.
>>>> Business owners have families, and they have employees and
>>>> associates
>>>> with families who will want to know whether the schools are good  
>>>> and
>>>> the streets are safe.
>>>> There is a wealth of economics
>>>> literature on this topic - dozens of national studies that have
>>>> looked
>>>> at state and local taxes, scouring the data for evidence of how to
>>>> maximize benefits at the minimum cost. One recent summary of those
>>>> studies concludes that "there is little evidence that state and
>>>> local
>>>> tax cuts - when paid for by reducing public services - stimulate
>>>> economic activity and create jobs," and that "increases in taxes,
>>>> when
>>>> used to expand the quantity and quality of public services, can
>>>> promote
>>>> economic development and employment growth."
>>>> Indeed, the long-term harm of having a
>>>> labor force that is increasingly ill-equipped to compete in a  
>>>> global
>>>> economy represents an unsustainable path for Oregon. Businesses  
>>>> can,
>>>> and do, hire well-trained employees from outside Oregon, however.
>>>> Past
>>>> studies have shown that newcomers to Oregon have more education  
>>>> than
>>>> current residents, and as a result take the highest- paying jobs.
>>>> So it
>>>> may be that some businesses do not feel a need to pay to better
>>>> educate
>>>> Oregonians: They can hire workers with good educations from out of
>>>> state.
>>>> Explaining economic information and
>>>> interpreting economic analysis for the general public is a
>>>> challenging
>>>> part of my job as an Oregon State University professor and  
>>>> Extension
>>>> Service policy specialist. Helping Oregonians understand objective
>>>> economic information is made more difficult, however, when
>>>> misinformation is labeled as economics.
>>>> Professional standards in our field
>>>> include a peer review process for quality control, and the backing
>>>> of a
>>>> well-established research institute, university or respected
>>>> consulting
>>>> firm. Research results always are made transparent, and data and
>>>> methods are made available freely to other researchers who might
>>>> want
>>>> to examine them in detail.
>>>> Claims that 70,000 jobs will be lost
>>>> due to the "job killing taxes" represented by Measures 66 and 67  
>>>> are
>>>> not based on estimates that conform to these standards of the
>>>> economics
>>>> profession. These estimates were not subjected to peer review - at
>>>> least not voluntarily. When examined by nationally recognized
>>>> experts
>>>> on state and local public finance at the Brookings Institution, the
>>>> result was a scathing report concluding that the analyses were
>>>> "without
>>>> merit."
>>>> The economists behind these job-killing
>>>> estimates have failed to fully explain their methods. Indeed,  
>>>> months
>>>> after presenting to voters their estimate of 70,000 lost jobs, they
>>>> are
>>>> now backtracking on these "guesstimates." They recently
>>>> substituted a
>>>> new paper that purports to come to the same conclusions but using
>>>> completely new data and different statistical methods. However,  
>>>> they
>>>> have refused to make their new data and new methods available to
>>>> other
>>>> economists or the public.
>>>> In addition, these economists have
>>>> misrepresented the conclusions of scholarly publications and
>>>> institutions (including statements in the Oregon Voters' Pamphlet).
>>>> Perhaps most tellingly, none of these economists is affiliated for
>>>> purposes of this analysis with an institution with a reputation for
>>>> unbiased research.
>>>> Voters should understand that there is
>>>> no exact way to estimate the long-term effects of changes in
>>>> taxes and
>>>> public services on jobs and economic growth. The evidence from 30
>>>> years
>>>> of economic research, however, reinforces common sense: When your
>>>> taxes
>>>> and public services are among the lowest in the country, the
>>>> benefits
>>>> from improving poor public services - especially education - are
>>>> likely
>>>> to outweigh the costs of modest increases in taxes.
>>>> ________________________________
>>>>
>>>> THE MEASURES AT A GLANCE
>>>> Measure 66: Raises
>>>> the income tax rate on single filers' taxable income above $125,000
>>>> and
>>>> on joint filers' taxable income above $250,000.
>>>> Measure 67: Replaces
>>>> the current corporate minimum tax of $10 a year with a tiered
>>>> rate of
>>>> between $150 and $100,000 a year. It also would temporarily  
>>>> increase
>>>> the corporate tax rate for smaller businesses and permanently for
>>>> those
>>>> with profits exceeding $10 million.
>>>> Copyright C 2010 - The Register-Guard, Eugene, Oregon, USA
>>>> -- 
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> GroveNet mailing list
>>>> GroveNet at rdrop.com
>>>> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> GroveNet mailing list
>>> GroveNet at rdrop.com
>>> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> GroveNet mailing list
>> GroveNet at rdrop.com
>> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> GroveNet mailing list
>> GroveNet at rdrop.com
>> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: Steven <NoSpam03 at comcast.net>
> To: Forest Grove local interests list <grovenet at rdrop.com>
> Sent: Sun, January 24, 2010 9:11:58 AM
> Subject: Re: [Grovenet] An interesting view on 66 and 67 . . .
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet



From ocollaugh at comcast.net  Sun Jan 24 09:54:56 2010
From: ocollaugh at comcast.net (donkelly)
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 2010 17:54:56 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: [Grovenet] An interesting view on 66 and 67 . . .
In-Reply-To: <54D61FB7-D109-48CA-BAD0-BA878AC9EBCD@teleport.com>
Message-ID: <1001212801.14939691264355696662.JavaMail.root@sz0024a.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net>

AARP sent a letter explaining why they supported the health care bill as it was, without holding out for changes. 

It was pathetic. 

I quit AARP and others of unknown numbers are quitting too. 

We believe that AARP accepted a bribe for their support.

If the cost of health care goes up, what's in it for AARP?

But others may know more about that glitch and can provide less acidic comments about why AARP rolled over.

donkelly

----- Original Message -----
From: Walt Wentz <waltw at teleport.com>
To: Forest Grove local interests list <grovenet at rdrop.com>
Sent: Sun, 24 Jan 2010 17:44:50 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: Re: [Grovenet] An interesting view on 66 and 67 . . .


On Jan 24, 2010, at 9:25 AM, Vickie Madeoneup wrote:

> this is what drives me crazy about politics. I realize that one  
> side does not want to
> provide the argument for the other side, but how about giving the  
> people an accurate
> picture and letting us vote intelligently and informed without  
> making it more complicated or
> confusing than it needs to be.

Try the League of Women Voters, AARP, the Oregonian's "Poltifact"  
feature, various other impartial agencies you might find on the Web.
>
> I believe the current form of providing the "facts" is what makes  
> people distrust politics
> in the first place and to feel apathetic about any difference they  
> can make.

Please trim your headers.


From jim at benchmarkinspections.com  Sun Jan 24 09:57:36 2010
From: jim at benchmarkinspections.com (Jim Katen)
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 2010 09:57:36 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] An interesting view on 66 and 67 . . .
In-Reply-To: <358463.58799.qm@web112411.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
References: <4B58B9D7.9010100@jurislex.com>
	<630873.58629.qm@web112115.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<6BF999DB-6607-4ED6-A74F-13B0ECF3B1D9@verizon.net>
	<BED3363A12A84F58996A83927A3F5F4D@JeffVAIO>
	<394798.3808.qm@web112416.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<2EAFFC35-81EA-4F8E-9AEB-6FB37A36A969@teleport.com>
	<001101ca9d18$57979bd0$06c6d370$@net>
	<358463.58799.qm@web112411.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <9554F7B1D56C4C9F9DB32AF13EAA5B82@JimDell>

Vickie,

I found this page helpful: 

http://wweek.com/editorial/3609/13541/

- Jim Katen





-----Original Message-----
From: grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com [mailto:grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com] On
Behalf Of Vickie Madeoneup
Sent: Sunday, January 24, 2010 9:26 AM
To: Forest Grove local interests list
Subject: Re: [Grovenet] An interesting view on 66 and 67 . . .

this is what drives me crazy about politics. I realize that one side does
not want to 
provide the argument for the other side, but how about giving the people an
accurate 
picture and letting us vote intelligently and informed without making it
more complicated or
confusing than it needs to be.
?
I believe the current?form of providing the "facts" is what makes people
distrust politics
in the first place and to feel apathetic about any difference they can make.
My 2 cents
?
Vickie




From allnutt at verizon.net  Sun Jan 24 10:26:29 2010
From: allnutt at verizon.net (Katie Allnutt)
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 2010 10:26:29 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] An interesting view on 66 and 67 . . .
In-Reply-To: <394798.3808.qm@web112416.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
References: <4B58B9D7.9010100@jurislex.com>
	<630873.58629.qm@web112115.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<6BF999DB-6607-4ED6-A74F-13B0ECF3B1D9@verizon.net>
	<BED3363A12A84F58996A83927A3F5F4D@JeffVAIO>
	<394798.3808.qm@web112416.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <024DA7A7-150B-48A6-AB60-77E0D8F7B758@verizon.net>

For the corporate minimum....

They Yes folks point out that most corporations will go from paying  
the $10 minimum to the $150 minimum. So it is quite true that you  
won't lay off folks if you pay $140 more.

But even with that minimum, there are lots of big corporations that  
use every loop hole in the book to hide their income and still pay  
the minimum.
So, to close some of those loopholes there will be a new tax if can't  
make a profit ( ie you pay your CEO a lot and deduct it as a business  
expense) yet you sell more than $500,000 worth of stuff to people in  
Oregon.  0000.1 percent (one tenth of one percent) of sales in Oregon.

So if you are a big enough corporation to sell half a million dollars  
of stuff to Oregon people and still not make a profit your tax will  
go from the now minimum of $10 to $150 plus $500 for a total of $650.  
That is the new minimum.
Yes, somebody will lay off the part time worker over $640 in new taxes.

Now there is yet one more category of businesses,  those that sell a  
lot of stuff AND make a profit. If your PROFIT is more than $250,000  
(after all your expenses have been paid your CEO got a bonus etc.)  
then the tax rate goes up a bit. And if your PROFITS are over $10  
million the rate stays higher, but if under ten million is will  
almost go back to today's rate after 2010.
I suspect that companies that are still profitable will not lay off  
anybody because they have already cut people by now.

The NO folks emphasize the rate increase on the  big corporations   
who make over $10 million in profits.
(Note, businesses will pay either the minimum tax or the profits tax,  
not both).

Try not to get too caught up in the details of the ads.
You cannot blatantly lie in advertising but you can mislead and leave  
out important details that would clarify the facts. And everybody  
does it.  So, you do have to ask questions.

Katie
PS IF you don't still have it, here is a link to the voter's pamphlet.
www.sos.state.or.us/elections/jan262010/guide/jan2010_vp.pdf






On Jan 24, 2010, at 8:32 AM, Vickie Madeoneup wrote:

> I too am a bit confused by these 2 measures.
> The vote NO folks say we will loose jobs,
> the vote Yes folks say the minimum tax goes from
> $10 to $150.
>
> A business will not move because of $140 so I am
> missing something huge here.
>
> Anyone have any insights?
>
> Vickie
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Marian Cakarnis <oldredwagon at verizon.net>
> To: Forest Grove local interests list <grovenet at rdrop.com>
> Sent: Sat, January 23, 2010 9:51:40 AM
> Subject: Re: [Grovenet] An interesting view on 66 and 67 . . .
>
> I'm still thinking about all the implications of the passing of 67 and
> wonder about the sales tax 'feature'.  As I understand it,  
> companies with
> sales in excess of 500K in Oregon will be charged a tax -  
> essentially a
> sales tax.  I've always been an opponent to the sales tax, because  
> I can't
> fathom how much it will cost to set up a new infrastructure to  
> collect these
> taxes from consumers.
>
> Since measure 67 is essentially creating a sales tax, that will be  
> collected
> through our existing infrastructure, it seems far more efficient and
> cost-effective.  But, will this so-called sales tax also be  
> collected from
> out-of-state companies with sales in Oregon in excess of 500K?
>
> Probably a stupid question, but I wanted to understand it before  
> casting my
> vote.
>
> Marian
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------
> From: "Katie Allnutt" <allnutt at verizon.net>
> Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2010 5:43 PM
> To: "Forest Grove local interests list" <grovenet at rdrop.com>
> Subject: Re: [Grovenet] An interesting view on 66 and 67 . . .
>
>> Yep, and that good reason is they are the front line soldiers as the
>> jobs are shipped over seas, the economy falls apart and people need
>> help.
>> Their jobs are getting harder and they are taking furlough days
>> (losing pay), postponing increases (read both sides, not just the
>> sound bites) and they see the tragedies coming.
>>
>> We have given corporations huge liability protections just for
>> incorporating. We save them massive insurance costs by simply
>> sheltering their assets in lawsuits. Our tax laws give them
>> extraordinary loopholes to shelter income from taxes that regular
>> people don't get.  And for good reasons - we support businesses by
>> giving them a place to do business with courts that will protect
>> their interests. All these measures are doing is trimming one
>> loophole (tax on Oregon sales only - remember still no change to
>> taxes on out of state sales which is a HUGE loophole that remains)
>> and increasing the tiny minimum.  Did you know that before the great
>> depression the minimum corp tax was $25? During the depression it was
>> lowered to $10. If we were going to adjust it for inflation from its
>> pre depression $25 it would be $375.  And if you read the fine print
>> there are tons of protections for truly small businesses.
>>
>> Katie
>>
>>
>>
>> On Jan 21, 2010, at 4:59 PM, Allen Warren wrote:
>>
>>> As reported in the Oregonian this morning, http://
>>> www.oregonlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2010/01/public-
>>> employee_unions_flex_mu.html, there's a good reason "Public-
>>> employee unions have handily outspent business-backed foes in
>>> the campaign over two tax-raising measures on Tuesday's ballot."
>>>
>>> Here's another interesting view from the Wall Street Journal on our
>>> 2 tax measures: http://online.wsj.com/article/
>>> SB10001424052748704081704574652683989209884.html#printMode
>>>
>>>
>>> Allen Warren
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ________________________________
>>> From: Bob Browning <rab at jurislex.com>
>>> To: Grovenet <grovenet at rdrop.com>
>>> Sent: Thu, January 21, 2010 12:32:23 PM
>>> Subject: [Grovenet] An interesting view on 66 and 67 . . .
>>>
>>>
>>> The Register-Guard  http://www.registerguard.com/
>>> GUEST
>>> VIEWPOINT: Weighing measures 66 and 67
>>> By William Jaeger
>>> For The Register-Guard
>>> Posted to Web: Monday, Jan 11, 2010
>>> 11:41AM
>>> Appeared in print: Sunday, Jan 10, 2010, page G4
>>> Although some might have you
>>> believe otherwise, the economics behind Measures 66 and 67 ? the tax
>>> referenda that Oregonians will be deciding over the next two weeks ?
>>> actually are not that complicated. The main issues can be framed  
>>> as a
>>> benefit-cost analysis, where public services are the benefits and
>>> taxes
>>> are the costs.
>>> The economic question is equally
>>> simple, and perhaps more to the point: Do the measures? benefits
>>> outweigh their costs?
>>> The answer depends in part on how
>>> Oregon?s taxes and public services compare to those of other states.
>>> Because Oregon competes with peers around the country in a  
>>> variety of
>>> ways to attract and retain businesses and to sell its products  
>>> around
>>> the world, we need to know whether Oregon taxes and public services
>>> are
>>> high or low compared to those in other states.
>>> Let?s start with taxes.
>>> Oregon taxes as a share of personal
>>> income have been significantly below the national average for many
>>> years, and the gap has widened since the 1990s (see chart).
>>> The most recent data available show
>>> Oregon?s state taxes at 5 percent of personal income, compared to a
>>> national average of 6 percent. When state and local taxes are
>>> combined,
>>> the relationship is about the same: Oregon?s ranking is 44th out  
>>> of 50
>>> states in state taxes; 43rd in state and local taxes (which includes
>>> property taxes).
>>> You may hear that taxes have gone up by
>>> tens of billions of dollars in Oregon over the past few years. But
>>> this
>>> tells us little without adjusting for inflation, increasing  
>>> population
>>> or economic growth.
>>> The picture also would be misleading if
>>> we add fees to taxes or look at total state spending rather than
>>> taxes.
>>> Oregon has relatively high fees in some categories such as seaports,
>>> parks and recreation. But that is because, unlike most states,  
>>> Oregon
>>> has important international seaports, and some of the best
>>> recreational
>>> opportunities in the country. A large fraction of these fees are  
>>> paid
>>> by non-Oregonians, so they generate revenue without adding to the  
>>> ?tax
>>> burden? of residents.
>>> What about business taxes?
>>> Businesses pay taxes in a variety of
>>> ways, including business property taxes, corporate income taxes,
>>> unemployment insurance taxes and individual income taxes paid by
>>> non-corporate businesses. In 2008, the international consulting firm
>>> Ernst & Young estimated state-level business taxes (as a share of
>>> state gross domestic product) and government expenditures benefiting
>>> businesses for all 50 states. The firm found that Oregon ranks dead
>>> last: the lowest net business taxes in the country.
>>> Let?s turn to public services, where
>>> education is the largest budget category. Since the 1970s, Oregon  
>>> has
>>> fallen from mid-range to a dismal 49th out of 50 states in terms of
>>> average teacher-student ratio (see chart). Oregon also has the
>>> second-shortest school year in the country.
>>> Salaries and benefits at Oregon?s
>>> universities are as much as 17 percent below the national average,
>>> making it much harder to attract and retain the best teachers and
>>> researchers. Tuition and fees at Oregon?s public two-year  
>>> colleges are
>>> 29 percent higher than the national average.
>>> Have these trends in Oregon?s
>>> educational system affected Oregon?s labor force? Oregon has seen a
>>> decline in the number of college educated residents: A larger  
>>> fraction
>>> of older Oregonians (ages 55 to 64) have bachelor?s degrees than do
>>> younger Oregonians (ages 25 to 34). The trend occurs at a time when
>>> the
>>> nation and the world are headed in the other direction.
>>> But are Oregon?s public education funds
>>> spent efficiently? According to the U.S. Department of Education,
>>> Oregon spends 70 percent of education funds on instruction or  
>>> student
>>> services, comparable to the national average of 71 percent. A recent
>>> Rutgers University study shows that 11 out of 12 categories of  
>>> private
>>> schools had average expenditures per pupil that were similar to or
>>> higher than public schools.
>>> With this background, let?s look at
>>> Measures 66 and 67. Measure 66 raises personal income taxes on
>>> high-income earners, those earning $125,000 individually or $250,000
>>> per household. Measure 67 raises corporate income taxes by $140 per
>>> year for most partnerships and corporations; for C-corporations with
>>> in-state sales above $500,000, the tax increase initially amounts to
>>> about 0.1 percent of gross sales.
>>> The third chart shows Oregon?s tax
>>> burden by income group, and how that burden would change with  
>>> passage
>>> of these two measures. High-income groups would see their taxes
>>> rise on
>>> average by a small fraction. However, they still would pay a smaller
>>> share of their income in state and local taxes than would middle- or
>>> low-income households. Thus, Oregon?s tax system still would be
>>> regressive overall.
>>> Let?s look at the effect of these tax
>>> measures in the short run. President Obama has said, ?The last thing
>>> you want to do in the middle of a recession is raise taxes.? That?s
>>> because nationally, Congress can pay for public services by  
>>> borrowing
>>> against future taxes. In Oregon, deficit financing is not  
>>> allowed, so
>>> the choice is between cutting public services and raising taxes.
>>> In this situation, most research
>>> clearly shows that raising taxes on high-income families will be  
>>> less
>>> harmful to a state?s economy than reduced public services. So in a
>>> world of two bad choices, raising taxes on high-income households is
>>> ?less bad? than further cuts to public services. It also is more
>>> equitable, since many of these public services support the less
>>> fortunate in our communities.
>>> Now, let?s consider benefits versus
>>> costs in the long run.
>>> All tax increases represent a cost to
>>> the economy, but even with these two tax increases, Oregon still  
>>> would
>>> have a lower level of taxes than most other states. It is unlikely
>>> that
>>> these modest tax increases would discourage business owners, workers
>>> and other professionals from staying in or coming to Oregon, since
>>> most
>>> other states? taxes are higher.
>>> By contrast, the evidence of Oregon?s
>>> declining public services, especially education, easily could
>>> discourage entrepreneurs and professionals from coming or staying.
>>> Business owners have families, and they have employees and  
>>> associates
>>> with families who will want to know whether the schools are good and
>>> the streets are safe.
>>> There is a wealth of economics
>>> literature on this topic ? dozens of national studies that have  
>>> looked
>>> at state and local taxes, scouring the data for evidence of how to
>>> maximize benefits at the minimum cost. One recent summary of those
>>> studies concludes that ?there is little evidence that state and  
>>> local
>>> tax cuts ? when paid for by reducing public services ? stimulate
>>> economic activity and create jobs,? and that ?increases in taxes,  
>>> when
>>> used to expand the quantity and quality of public services, can
>>> promote
>>> economic development and employment growth.?
>>> Indeed, the long-term harm of having a
>>> labor force that is increasingly ill-equipped to compete in a global
>>> economy represents an unsustainable path for Oregon. Businesses can,
>>> and do, hire well-trained employees from outside Oregon, however.  
>>> Past
>>> studies have shown that newcomers to Oregon have more education than
>>> current residents, and as a result take the highest- paying jobs.
>>> So it
>>> may be that some businesses do not feel a need to pay to better
>>> educate
>>> Oregonians: They can hire workers with good educations from out of
>>> state.
>>> Explaining economic information and
>>> interpreting economic analysis for the general public is a  
>>> challenging
>>> part of my job as an Oregon State University professor and Extension
>>> Service policy specialist. Helping Oregonians understand objective
>>> economic information is made more difficult, however, when
>>> misinformation is labeled as economics.
>>> Professional standards in our field
>>> include a peer review process for quality control, and the backing
>>> of a
>>> well-established research institute, university or respected
>>> consulting
>>> firm. Research results always are made transparent, and data and
>>> methods are made available freely to other researchers who might  
>>> want
>>> to examine them in detail.
>>> Claims that 70,000 jobs will be lost
>>> due to the ?job killing taxes? represented by Measures 66 and 67 are
>>> not based on estimates that conform to these standards of the
>>> economics
>>> profession. These estimates were not subjected to peer review ? at
>>> least not voluntarily. When examined by nationally recognized  
>>> experts
>>> on state and local public finance at the Brookings Institution, the
>>> result was a scathing report concluding that the analyses were
>>> ?without
>>> merit.?
>>> The economists behind these job-killing
>>> estimates have failed to fully explain their methods. Indeed, months
>>> after presenting to voters their estimate of 70,000 lost jobs, they
>>> are
>>> now backtracking on these ?guesstimates.? They recently  
>>> substituted a
>>> new paper that purports to come to the same conclusions but using
>>> completely new data and different statistical methods. However, they
>>> have refused to make their new data and new methods available to  
>>> other
>>> economists or the public.
>>> In addition, these economists have
>>> misrepresented the conclusions of scholarly publications and
>>> institutions (including statements in the Oregon Voters? Pamphlet).
>>> Perhaps most tellingly, none of these economists is affiliated for
>>> purposes of this analysis with an institution with a reputation for
>>> unbiased research.
>>> Voters should understand that there is
>>> no exact way to estimate the long-term effects of changes in  
>>> taxes and
>>> public services on jobs and economic growth. The evidence from 30
>>> years
>>> of economic research, however, reinforces common sense: When your
>>> taxes
>>> and public services are among the lowest in the country, the  
>>> benefits
>>> from improving poor public services ? especially education ? are
>>> likely
>>> to outweigh the costs of modest increases in taxes.
>>> ________________________________
>>>
>>> THE MEASURES AT A GLANCE
>>> Measure 66: Raises
>>> the income tax rate on single filers? taxable income above $125,000
>>> and
>>> on joint filers? taxable income above $250,000.
>>> Measure 67: Replaces
>>> the current corporate minimum tax of $10 a year with a tiered  
>>> rate of
>>> between $150 and $100,000 a year. It also would temporarily increase
>>> the corporate tax rate for smaller businesses and permanently for
>>> those
>>> with profits exceeding $10 million.
>>> Copyright ? 2010 ? The Register-Guard, Eugene, Oregon, USA
>>> -- 
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> GroveNet mailing list
>>> GroveNet at rdrop.com
>>> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> GroveNet mailing list
>> GroveNet at rdrop.com
>> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet




From allnutt at verizon.net  Sun Jan 24 10:32:05 2010
From: allnutt at verizon.net (Katie Allnutt)
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 2010 10:32:05 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] An interesting view on 66 and 67 . . .
In-Reply-To: <9554F7B1D56C4C9F9DB32AF13EAA5B82@JimDell>
References: <4B58B9D7.9010100@jurislex.com>
	<630873.58629.qm@web112115.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<6BF999DB-6607-4ED6-A74F-13B0ECF3B1D9@verizon.net>
	<BED3363A12A84F58996A83927A3F5F4D@JeffVAIO>
	<394798.3808.qm@web112416.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<2EAFFC35-81EA-4F8E-9AEB-6FB37A36A969@teleport.com>
	<001101ca9d18$57979bd0$06c6d370$@net>
	<358463.58799.qm@web112411.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<9554F7B1D56C4C9F9DB32AF13EAA5B82@JimDell>
Message-ID: <B887C4AD-0EAD-4C78-852C-DCE2BBA790D9@verizon.net>

Thanks Jim,
   I think most people want to aim for fairness and the numbers get  
overwhelming.  I took two  paragraphs that help with the fairness  
issue from the article you linked and put them  below.
Katie


On Jan 24, 2010, at 9:57 AM, Jim Katen wrote:

> Vickie,
>
> I found this page helpful:
>
> http://wweek.com/editorial/3609/13541/
>
> - Jim Katen
>
>
>

Are individual Oregonians taxed more or less than other Americans?

Our personal income tax rates are among the highest in the nation,  
even without 66 and 67. If the voters approve Measure 66, we will  
share the highest personal income tax rate with Hawaii. But it?s  
important to remember Oregon is one of five states with no sales tax.

Policy wallahs say there are two criteria one should use to compare  
tax systems: First, how much residents shell out in total taxes,  
including sales tax, and second, what percentage of one?s income that  
tax burden represents. Oregon?s Legislative Revenue Office?a  
nonpartisan agency that both proponents and opponents of the measures  
trust?says Oregonians? total per-capita tax burden in 2006 was 36th  
highest in the nation. (In other words, 35 states ask their residents  
to pay higher taxes.) On a percentage-of-income basis, we look even  
more lightly taxed: According to Legislative Revenue, Oregon ranked  
42nd highest. If Measure 66 and Measure 67 pass, we?ll move up  
slightly but still keep more of our income than do residents of most  
states.

Many businesses hate the proposed corporate tax increases. Are they  
overtaxed already?

In a 2008 national study of corporate taxes, the Ernst & Young  
auditing firm found that the largest chunk of taxes businesses pay is  
property tax, followed by sales taxes. Corporate income tax was a  
distant third. In Oregon, businesses pay moderate property taxes, no  
sales tax and a middling corporate income tax rate, all of which make  
their overall tax burden among the lowest in the nation. Ernst &  
Young found that Oregon?s tax burden on businesses is the second  
lowest in the country. Critics of 67 dispute the Ernst & Young study.  
?We think the methodology is wrong and it leaves out some things,?  
says Pat McCormick, a spokesman for the ?no? side. It?s worth noting  
the Legislative Revenue Office was comfortable enough with the Ernst  
& Young study to have relied on it in its November analysis of the  
tax measures

From nospam03 at comcast.net  Sun Jan 24 10:35:41 2010
From: nospam03 at comcast.net (Steve)
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 2010 18:35:41 +0000
Subject: [Grovenet] An interesting view on 66 and 67 . . .
In-Reply-To: <1001212801.14939691264355696662.JavaMail.root@sz0024a.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net>
References: <54D61FB7-D109-48CA-BAD0-BA878AC9EBCD@teleport.com><1001212801.14939691264355696662.JavaMail.root@sz0024a.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net>
Message-ID: <2124139201-1264358145-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1362903197-@bda284.bisx.prod.on.blackberry>

AARP has an insurance arm. An agreement was made that would profit them. 
-----Original Message-----
From: donkelly <ocollaugh at comcast.net>
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 2010 17:54:56 
To: Forest Grove local interests list<grovenet at rdrop.com>
Subject: Re: [Grovenet] An interesting view on 66 and 67 . . .

AARP sent a letter explaining why they supported the health care bill as it was, without holding out for changes. 

It was pathetic. 

I quit AARP and others of unknown numbers are quitting too. 

We believe that AARP accepted a bribe for their support.

If the cost of health care goes up, what's in it for AARP?

But others may know more about that glitch and can provide less acidic comments about why AARP rolled over.

donkelly

----- Original Message -----
From: Walt Wentz <waltw at teleport.com>
To: Forest Grove local interests list <grovenet at rdrop.com>
Sent: Sun, 24 Jan 2010 17:44:50 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: Re: [Grovenet] An interesting view on 66 and 67 . . .


On Jan 24, 2010, at 9:25 AM, Vickie Madeoneup wrote:

> this is what drives me crazy about politics. I realize that one  
> side does not want to
> provide the argument for the other side, but how about giving the  
> people an accurate
> picture and letting us vote intelligently and informed without  
> making it more complicated or
> confusing than it needs to be.

Try the League of Women Voters, AARP, the Oregonian's "Poltifact"  
feature, various other impartial agencies you might find on the Web.
>
> I believe the current form of providing the "facts" is what makes  
> people distrust politics
> in the first place and to feel apathetic about any difference they  
> can make.

Please trim your headers.

_______________________________________________
GroveNet mailing list
GroveNet at rdrop.com
http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet


From nospam03 at comcast.net  Sun Jan 24 10:41:56 2010
From: nospam03 at comcast.net (Steve)
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 2010 18:41:56 +0000
Subject: [Grovenet] An interesting view on 66 and 67 . . .
In-Reply-To: <AD866E31-70FD-414C-9EFB-FC847744538A@teleport.com>
References: <4B58B9D7.9010100@jurislex.com><630873.58629.qm@web112115.mail.gq1.yahoo.com><6BF999DB-6607-4ED6-A74F-13B0ECF3B1D9@verizon.net><BED3363A12A84F58996A83927A3F5F4D@JeffVAIO><394798.3808.qm@web112416.mail.gq1.yahoo.com><2EAFFC35-81EA-4F8E-9AEB-6FB37A36A969@teleport.com><001101ca9d18$57979bd0$06c6d370$@net><358463.58799.qm@web112411.mail.gq1.yahoo.com><398610.51455.qm@web112113.mail.gq1.yahoo.com><AD866E31-70FD-414C-9EFB-FC847744538A@teleport.com>
Message-ID: <1677748056-1264358520-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1903451407-@bda284.bisx.prod.on.blackberry>

I heard a piece on Science Friday talking about Austria in WWII. The leadership was good at pitting the poor against the jews because they were rich. 
You've cast anyone who disagrees with you a racist. Now this. 
-----Original Message-----
From: Walt Wentz <waltw at teleport.com>
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 2010 09:47:30 
To: Forest Grove local interests list<grovenet at rdrop.com>
Subject: Re: [Grovenet] An interesting view on 66 and 67 . . .

Right. But the highest income people and companies do not pay the 9  
percent rate working people do-- with access to skillful tax  
attorneys and special deals, they pay more like 6.5 percent. So the  
tax measures are just a baby step toward equality.

On Jan 24, 2010, at 9:32 AM, Allen Warren wrote:

> One important distinction about the effect of Measure 66 that I  
> explained to a friend of mine at work last week who didn't realize  
> it until I explained it to him.  And it makes sense when you think  
> about it . . .
>
> Let's say an individual income is $175k.  The first $125k is taxed  
> at the nominal 9% rate.  The 10.8% rate is only applied to anything  
> above $125k, meaning the individual with $175k income will only be  
> paying the higher income tax on $50k, not the entire $175k.
>
>
> Allen Warren
>
> From: Vickie Madeoneup <whatsupy2k at yahoo.com>
>
> To: Forest Grove local interests list <grovenet at rdrop.com>
> Sent: Sun, January 24, 2010 9:25:45 AM
> Subject: Re: [Grovenet] An interesting view on 66 and 67 . . .
>
> this is what drives me crazy about politics. I realize that one  
> side does not want to
> provide the argument for the other side, but how about giving the  
> people an accurate
> picture and letting us vote intelligently and informed without  
> making it more complicated or
> confusing than it needs to be.
>
> I believe the current form of providing the "facts" is what makes  
> people distrust politics
> in the first place and to feel apathetic about any difference they  
> can make.
> My 2 cents
>
> Vickie
> And the vote Yes folks use $250,000 income as the tax level when it is
> actually $125,000 for individuals. Bigger number sounds better.
>
> If this is only a little increase, how will it reap hundreds of  
> millions of
> dollars? Mostly it will go to pay raises. Meanwhile many of us have  
> cut
> salaries to stay afloat.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com [mailto:grovenet- 
> bounces at rdrop.com] On
> Behalf Of Walt Wentz
> Sent: Sunday, January 24, 2010 8:48 AM
> To: Forest Grove local interests list
> Subject: Re: [Grovenet] An interesting view on 66 and 67 . . .
>
> The "vote no" folks claim we will lose jobs because they know that is
> the greatest fear of most Oregonians. In other words, it's skillful
> manipulation of public fear, by the corporations who'd have to pay
> more in taxes. The incredible numbers they toss around are pulled out
> of body apertures by a corporate PR agency.
> If the measures ARE defeated, some state services (education, health
> services, public safety) would have their funds cut still further,
> and then those services would have to cut employees... so we
> definitely WILL lose jobs, if 66 & 67 are defeated. We'll also lose
> more public services, especially when federal matching funds are lost
> due to cuts in the state budget.
> Walt
> On Jan 24, 2010, at 8:32 AM, Vickie Madeoneup wrote:
>
>> I too am a bit confused by these 2 measures.
>> The vote NO folks say we will loose jobs,
>> the vote Yes folks say the minimum tax goes from
>> $10 to $150.
>>
>> A business will not move because of $140 so I am
>> missing something huge here.
>>
>> Anyone have any insights?
>>
>> Vickie
>>
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: Marian Cakarnis <oldredwagon at verizon.net>
>> To: Forest Grove local interests list <grovenet at rdrop.com>
>> Sent: Sat, January 23, 2010 9:51:40 AM
>> Subject: Re: [Grovenet] An interesting view on 66 and 67 . . .
>>
>> I'm still thinking about all the implications of the passing of 67  
>> and
>> wonder about the sales tax 'feature'.  As I understand it,
>> companies with
>> sales in excess of 500K in Oregon will be charged a tax -
>> essentially a
>> sales tax.  I've always been an opponent to the sales tax, because
>> I can't
>> fathom how much it will cost to set up a new infrastructure to
>> collect these
>> taxes from consumers.
>>
>> Since measure 67 is essentially creating a sales tax, that will be
>> collected
>> through our existing infrastructure, it seems far more efficient and
>> cost-effective.  But, will this so-called sales tax also be
>> collected from
>> out-of-state companies with sales in Oregon in excess of 500K?
>>
>> Probably a stupid question, but I wanted to understand it before
>> casting my
>> vote.
>>
>> Marian
>>
>>
>> --------------------------------------------------
>> From: "Katie Allnutt" <allnutt at verizon.net>
>> Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2010 5:43 PM
>> To: "Forest Grove local interests list" <grovenet at rdrop.com>
>> Subject: Re: [Grovenet] An interesting view on 66 and 67 . . .
>>
>>> Yep, and that good reason is they are the front line soldiers as the
>>> jobs are shipped over seas, the economy falls apart and people need
>>> help.
>>> Their jobs are getting harder and they are taking furlough days
>>> (losing pay), postponing increases (read both sides, not just the
>>> sound bites) and they see the tragedies coming.
>>>
>>> We have given corporations huge liability protections just for
>>> incorporating. We save them massive insurance costs by simply
>>> sheltering their assets in lawsuits. Our tax laws give them
>>> extraordinary loopholes to shelter income from taxes that regular
>>> people don't get.  And for good reasons - we support businesses by
>>> giving them a place to do business with courts that will protect
>>> their interests. All these measures are doing is trimming one
>>> loophole (tax on Oregon sales only - remember still no change to
>>> taxes on out of state sales which is a HUGE loophole that remains)
>>> and increasing the tiny minimum.  Did you know that before the great
>>> depression the minimum corp tax was $25? During the depression it  
>>> was
>>> lowered to $10. If we were going to adjust it for inflation from its
>>> pre depression $25 it would be $375.  And if you read the fine print
>>> there are tons of protections for truly small businesses.
>>>
>>> Katie
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Jan 21, 2010, at 4:59 PM, Allen Warren wrote:
>>>
>>>> As reported in the Oregonian this morning, http://
>>>> www.oregonlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2010/01/public-
>>>> employee_unions_flex_mu.html, there's a good reason "Public-
>>>> employee unions have handily outspent business-backed foes in
>>>> the campaign over two tax-raising measures on Tuesday's ballot."
>>>>
>>>> Here's another interesting view from the Wall Street Journal on our
>>>> 2 tax measures: http://online.wsj.com/article/
>>>> SB10001424052748704081704574652683989209884.html#printMode
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Allen Warren
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ________________________________
>>>> From: Bob Browning <rab at jurislex.com>
>>>> To: Grovenet <grovenet at rdrop.com>
>>>> Sent: Thu, January 21, 2010 12:32:23 PM
>>>> Subject: [Grovenet] An interesting view on 66 and 67 . . .
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The Register-Guard  http://www.registerguard.com/
>>>> GUEST
>>>> VIEWPOINT: Weighing measures 66 and 67
>>>> By William Jaeger
>>>> For The Register-Guard
>>>> Posted to Web: Monday, Jan 11, 2010
>>>> 11:41AM
>>>> Appeared in print: Sunday, Jan 10, 2010, page G4
>>>> Although some might have you
>>>> believe otherwise, the economics behind Measures 66 and 67 - the  
>>>> tax
>>>> referenda that Oregonians will be deciding over the next two  
>>>> weeks -
>>>> actually are not that complicated. The main issues can be framed
>>>> as a
>>>> benefit-cost analysis, where public services are the benefits and
>>>> taxes
>>>> are the costs.
>>>> The economic question is equally
>>>> simple, and perhaps more to the point: Do the measures' benefits
>>>> outweigh their costs?
>>>> The answer depends in part on how
>>>> Oregon's taxes and public services compare to those of other  
>>>> states.
>>>> Because Oregon competes with peers around the country in a
>>>> variety of
>>>> ways to attract and retain businesses and to sell its products
>>>> around
>>>> the world, we need to know whether Oregon taxes and public services
>>>> are
>>>> high or low compared to those in other states.
>>>> Let's start with taxes.
>>>> Oregon taxes as a share of personal
>>>> income have been significantly below the national average for many
>>>> years, and the gap has widened since the 1990s (see chart).
>>>> The most recent data available show
>>>> Oregon's state taxes at 5 percent of personal income, compared to a
>>>> national average of 6 percent. When state and local taxes are
>>>> combined,
>>>> the relationship is about the same: Oregon's ranking is 44th out
>>>> of 50
>>>> states in state taxes; 43rd in state and local taxes (which  
>>>> includes
>>>> property taxes).
>>>> You may hear that taxes have gone up by
>>>> tens of billions of dollars in Oregon over the past few years. But
>>>> this
>>>> tells us little without adjusting for inflation, increasing
>>>> population
>>>> or economic growth.
>>>> The picture also would be misleading if
>>>> we add fees to taxes or look at total state spending rather than
>>>> taxes.
>>>> Oregon has relatively high fees in some categories such as  
>>>> seaports,
>>>> parks and recreation. But that is because, unlike most states,
>>>> Oregon
>>>> has important international seaports, and some of the best
>>>> recreational
>>>> opportunities in the country. A large fraction of these fees are
>>>> paid
>>>> by non-Oregonians, so they generate revenue without adding to the
>>>> "tax
>>>> burden" of residents.
>>>> What about business taxes?
>>>> Businesses pay taxes in a variety of
>>>> ways, including business property taxes, corporate income taxes,
>>>> unemployment insurance taxes and individual income taxes paid by
>>>> non-corporate businesses. In 2008, the international consulting  
>>>> firm
>>>> Ernst & Young estimated state-level business taxes (as a share of
>>>> state gross domestic product) and government expenditures  
>>>> benefiting
>>>> businesses for all 50 states. The firm found that Oregon ranks dead
>>>> last: the lowest net business taxes in the country.
>>>> Let's turn to public services, where
>>>> education is the largest budget category. Since the 1970s, Oregon
>>>> has
>>>> fallen from mid-range to a dismal 49th out of 50 states in terms of
>>>> average teacher-student ratio (see chart). Oregon also has the
>>>> second-shortest school year in the country.
>>>> Salaries and benefits at Oregon's
>>>> universities are as much as 17 percent below the national average,
>>>> making it much harder to attract and retain the best teachers and
>>>> researchers. Tuition and fees at Oregon's public two-year
>>>> colleges are
>>>> 29 percent higher than the national average.
>>>> Have these trends in Oregon's
>>>> educational system affected Oregon's labor force? Oregon has seen a
>>>> decline in the number of college educated residents: A larger
>>>> fraction
>>>> of older Oregonians (ages 55 to 64) have bachelor's degrees than do
>>>> younger Oregonians (ages 25 to 34). The trend occurs at a time when
>>>> the
>>>> nation and the world are headed in the other direction.
>>>> But are Oregon's public education funds
>>>> spent efficiently? According to the U.S. Department of Education,
>>>> Oregon spends 70 percent of education funds on instruction or
>>>> student
>>>> services, comparable to the national average of 71 percent. A  
>>>> recent
>>>> Rutgers University study shows that 11 out of 12 categories of
>>>> private
>>>> schools had average expenditures per pupil that were similar to or
>>>> higher than public schools.
>>>> With this background, let's look at
>>>> Measures 66 and 67. Measure 66 raises personal income taxes on
>>>> high-income earners, those earning $125,000 individually or  
>>>> $250,000
>>>> per household. Measure 67 raises corporate income taxes by $140 per
>>>> year for most partnerships and corporations; for C-corporations  
>>>> with
>>>> in-state sales above $500,000, the tax increase initially  
>>>> amounts to
>>>> about 0.1 percent of gross sales.
>>>> The third chart shows Oregon's tax
>>>> burden by income group, and how that burden would change with
>>>> passage
>>>> of these two measures. High-income groups would see their taxes
>>>> rise on
>>>> average by a small fraction. However, they still would pay a  
>>>> smaller
>>>> share of their income in state and local taxes than would  
>>>> middle- or
>>>> low-income households. Thus, Oregon's tax system still would be
>>>> regressive overall.
>>>> Let's look at the effect of these tax
>>>> measures in the short run. President Obama has said, "The last  
>>>> thing
>>>> you want to do in the middle of a recession is raise taxes." That's
>>>> because nationally, Congress can pay for public services by
>>>> borrowing
>>>> against future taxes. In Oregon, deficit financing is not
>>>> allowed, so
>>>> the choice is between cutting public services and raising taxes.
>>>> In this situation, most research
>>>> clearly shows that raising taxes on high-income families will be
>>>> less
>>>> harmful to a state's economy than reduced public services. So in a
>>>> world of two bad choices, raising taxes on high-income  
>>>> households is
>>>> "less bad" than further cuts to public services. It also is more
>>>> equitable, since many of these public services support the less
>>>> fortunate in our communities.
>>>> Now, let's consider benefits versus
>>>> costs in the long run.
>>>> All tax increases represent a cost to
>>>> the economy, but even with these two tax increases, Oregon still
>>>> would
>>>> have a lower level of taxes than most other states. It is unlikely
>>>> that
>>>> these modest tax increases would discourage business owners,  
>>>> workers
>>>> and other professionals from staying in or coming to Oregon, since
>>>> most
>>>> other states' taxes are higher.
>>>> By contrast, the evidence of Oregon's
>>>> declining public services, especially education, easily could
>>>> discourage entrepreneurs and professionals from coming or staying.
>>>> Business owners have families, and they have employees and
>>>> associates
>>>> with families who will want to know whether the schools are good  
>>>> and
>>>> the streets are safe.
>>>> There is a wealth of economics
>>>> literature on this topic - dozens of national studies that have
>>>> looked
>>>> at state and local taxes, scouring the data for evidence of how to
>>>> maximize benefits at the minimum cost. One recent summary of those
>>>> studies concludes that "there is little evidence that state and
>>>> local
>>>> tax cuts - when paid for by reducing public services - stimulate
>>>> economic activity and create jobs," and that "increases in taxes,
>>>> when
>>>> used to expand the quantity and quality of public services, can
>>>> promote
>>>> economic development and employment growth."
>>>> Indeed, the long-term harm of having a
>>>> labor force that is increasingly ill-equipped to compete in a  
>>>> global
>>>> economy represents an unsustainable path for Oregon. Businesses  
>>>> can,
>>>> and do, hire well-trained employees from outside Oregon, however.
>>>> Past
>>>> studies have shown that newcomers to Oregon have more education  
>>>> than
>>>> current residents, and as a result take the highest- paying jobs.
>>>> So it
>>>> may be that some businesses do not feel a need to pay to better
>>>> educate
>>>> Oregonians: They can hire workers with good educations from out of
>>>> state.
>>>> Explaining economic information and
>>>> interpreting economic analysis for the general public is a
>>>> challenging
>>>> part of my job as an Oregon State University professor and  
>>>> Extension
>>>> Service policy specialist. Helping Oregonians understand objective
>>>> economic information is made more difficult, however, when
>>>> misinformation is labeled as economics.
>>>> Professional standards in our field
>>>> include a peer review process for quality control, and the backing
>>>> of a
>>>> well-established research institute, university or respected
>>>> consulting
>>>> firm. Research results always are made transparent, and data and
>>>> methods are made available freely to other researchers who might
>>>> want
>>>> to examine them in detail.
>>>> Claims that 70,000 jobs will be lost
>>>> due to the "job killing taxes" represented by Measures 66 and 67  
>>>> are
>>>> not based on estimates that conform to these standards of the
>>>> economics
>>>> profession. These estimates were not subjected to peer review - at
>>>> least not voluntarily. When examined by nationally recognized
>>>> experts
>>>> on state and local public finance at the Brookings Institution, the
>>>> result was a scathing report concluding that the analyses were
>>>> "without
>>>> merit."
>>>> The economists behind these job-killing
>>>> estimates have failed to fully explain their methods. Indeed,  
>>>> months
>>>> after presenting to voters their estimate of 70,000 lost jobs, they
>>>> are
>>>> now backtracking on these "guesstimates." They recently
>>>> substituted a
>>>> new paper that purports to come to the same conclusions but using
>>>> completely new data and different statistical methods. However,  
>>>> they
>>>> have refused to make their new data and new methods available to
>>>> other
>>>> economists or the public.
>>>> In addition, these economists have
>>>> misrepresented the conclusions of scholarly publications and
>>>> institutions (including statements in the Oregon Voters' Pamphlet).
>>>> Perhaps most tellingly, none of these economists is affiliated for
>>>> purposes of this analysis with an institution with a reputation for
>>>> unbiased research.
>>>> Voters should understand that there is
>>>> no exact way to estimate the long-term effects of changes in
>>>> taxes and
>>>> public services on jobs and economic growth. The evidence from 30
>>>> years
>>>> of economic research, however, reinforces common sense: When your
>>>> taxes
>>>> and public services are among the lowest in the country, the
>>>> benefits
>>>> from improving poor public services - especially education - are
>>>> likely
>>>> to outweigh the costs of modest increases in taxes.
>>>> ________________________________
>>>>
>>>> THE MEASURES AT A GLANCE
>>>> Measure 66: Raises
>>>> the income tax rate on single filers' taxable income above $125,000
>>>> and
>>>> on joint filers' taxable income above $250,000.
>>>> Measure 67: Replaces
>>>> the current corporate minimum tax of $10 a year with a tiered
>>>> rate of
>>>> between $150 and $100,000 a year. It also would temporarily  
>>>> increase
>>>> the corporate tax rate for smaller businesses and permanently for
>>>> those
>>>> with profits exceeding $10 million.
>>>> Copyright C 2010 - The Register-Guard, Eugene, Oregon, USA
>>>> -- 
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> GroveNet mailing list
>>>> GroveNet at rdrop.com
>>>> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> GroveNet mailing list
>>> GroveNet at rdrop.com
>>> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> GroveNet mailing list
>> GroveNet at rdrop.com
>> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> GroveNet mailing list
>> GroveNet at rdrop.com
>> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: Steven <NoSpam03 at comcast.net>
> To: Forest Grove local interests list <grovenet at rdrop.com>
> Sent: Sun, January 24, 2010 9:11:58 AM
> Subject: Re: [Grovenet] An interesting view on 66 and 67 . . .
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet


_______________________________________________
GroveNet mailing list
GroveNet at rdrop.com
http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet


From nospam03 at comcast.net  Sun Jan 24 10:45:36 2010
From: nospam03 at comcast.net (Steve)
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 2010 18:45:36 +0000
Subject: [Grovenet] An interesting view on 66 and 67 . . .
In-Reply-To: <B887C4AD-0EAD-4C78-852C-DCE2BBA790D9@verizon.net>
References: <4B58B9D7.9010100@jurislex.com><630873.58629.qm@web112115.mail.gq1.yahoo.com><6BF999DB-6607-4ED6-A74F-13B0ECF3B1D9@verizon.net><BED3363A12A84F58996A83927A3F5F4D@JeffVAIO><394798.3808.qm@web112416.mail.gq1.yahoo.com><2EAFFC35-81EA-4F8E-9AEB-6FB37A36A969@teleport.com><001101ca9d18$57979bd0$06c6d370$@net><358463.58799.qm@web112411.mail.gq1.yahoo.com><9554F7B1D56C4C9F9DB32AF13EAA5B82@JimDell><B887C4AD-0EAD-4C78-852C-DCE2BBA790D9@verizon.net>
Message-ID: <875578916-1264358740-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-394688661-@bda284.bisx.prod.on.blackberry>

I posted an article showing that states with higher business taxes have lower wages. 
Did you bother to read that?
-----Original Message-----
From: Katie Allnutt <allnutt at verizon.net>
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 2010 10:32:05 
To: <jim at benchmarkinspections.com>; Forest Grove local interests list<grovenet at rdrop.com>
Subject: Re: [Grovenet] An interesting view on 66 and 67 . . .

Thanks Jim,
   I think most people want to aim for fairness and the numbers get  
overwhelming.  I took two  paragraphs that help with the fairness  
issue from the article you linked and put them  below.
Katie


On Jan 24, 2010, at 9:57 AM, Jim Katen wrote:

> Vickie,
>
> I found this page helpful:
>
> http://wweek.com/editorial/3609/13541/
>
> - Jim Katen
>
>
>

Are individual Oregonians taxed more or less than other Americans?

Our personal income tax rates are among the highest in the nation,  
even without 66 and 67. If the voters approve Measure 66, we will  
share the highest personal income tax rate with Hawaii. But it?s  
important to remember Oregon is one of five states with no sales tax.

Policy wallahs say there are two criteria one should use to compare  
tax systems: First, how much residents shell out in total taxes,  
including sales tax, and second, what percentage of one?s income that  
tax burden represents. Oregon?s Legislative Revenue Office?a  
nonpartisan agency that both proponents and opponents of the measures  
trust?says Oregonians? total per-capita tax burden in 2006 was 36th  
highest in the nation. (In other words, 35 states ask their residents  
to pay higher taxes.) On a percentage-of-income basis, we look even  
more lightly taxed: According to Legislative Revenue, Oregon ranked  
42nd highest. If Measure 66 and Measure 67 pass, we?ll move up  
slightly but still keep more of our income than do residents of most  
states.

Many businesses hate the proposed corporate tax increases. Are they  
overtaxed already?

In a 2008 national study of corporate taxes, the Ernst & Young  
auditing firm found that the largest chunk of taxes businesses pay is  
property tax, followed by sales taxes. Corporate income tax was a  
distant third. In Oregon, businesses pay moderate property taxes, no  
sales tax and a middling corporate income tax rate, all of which make  
their overall tax burden among the lowest in the nation. Ernst &  
Young found that Oregon?s tax burden on businesses is the second  
lowest in the country. Critics of 67 dispute the Ernst & Young study.  
?We think the methodology is wrong and it leaves out some things,?  
says Pat McCormick, a spokesman for the ?no? side. It?s worth noting  
the Legislative Revenue Office was comfortable enough with the Ernst  
& Young study to have relied on it in its November analysis of the  
tax measures
_______________________________________________
GroveNet mailing list
GroveNet at rdrop.com
http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet


From ocollaugh at comcast.net  Sun Jan 24 10:51:31 2010
From: ocollaugh at comcast.net (donkelly)
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 2010 18:51:31 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: [Grovenet] An interesting view on 66 and 67 . . .
In-Reply-To: <875578916-1264358740-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-394688661-@bda284.bisx.prod.on.blackberry>
Message-ID: <1191707820.14954951264359091289.JavaMail.root@sz0024a.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net>

I believe you can add to that mix that states who allow illegals to walk in and take jobs, also integrally have lower wages.

don
----- Original Message -----
From: Steve <nospam03 at comcast.net>
To: Forest Grove local interests list <grovenet at rdrop.com>
Sent: Sun, 24 Jan 2010 18:45:36 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: Re: [Grovenet] An interesting view on 66 and 67 . . .

I posted an article showing that states with higher business taxes have lower wages. 
Did you bother to read that?
-----Original Message-----
From: Katie Allnutt <allnutt at verizon.net>
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 2010 10:32:05 
To: <jim at benchmarkinspections.com>; Forest Grove local interests list<grovenet at rdrop.com>
Subject: Re: [Grovenet] An interesting view on 66 and 67 . . .

Thanks Jim,
   I think most people want to aim for fairness and the numbers get  
overwhelming.  I took two  paragraphs that help with the fairness  
issue from the article you linked and put them  below.
Katie


On Jan 24, 2010, at 9:57 AM, Jim Katen wrote:

> Vickie,
>
> I found this page helpful:
>
> http://wweek.com/editorial/3609/13541/
>
> - Jim Katen
>
>
>

Are individual Oregonians taxed more or less than other Americans?

Our personal income tax rates are among the highest in the nation,  
even without 66 and 67. If the voters approve Measure 66, we will  
share the highest personal income tax rate with Hawaii. But it?s  
important to remember Oregon is one of five states with no sales tax.

Policy wallahs say there are two criteria one should use to compare  
tax systems: First, how much residents shell out in total taxes,  
including sales tax, and second, what percentage of one?s income that  
tax burden represents. Oregon?s Legislative Revenue Office?a  
nonpartisan agency that both proponents and opponents of the measures  
trust?says Oregonians? total per-capita tax burden in 2006 was 36th  
highest in the nation. (In other words, 35 states ask their residents  
to pay higher taxes.) On a percentage-of-income basis, we look even  
more lightly taxed: According to Legislative Revenue, Oregon ranked  
42nd highest. If Measure 66 and Measure 67 pass, we?ll move up  
slightly but still keep more of our income than do residents of most  
states.

Many businesses hate the proposed corporate tax increases. Are they  
overtaxed already?

In a 2008 national study of corporate taxes, the Ernst & Young  
auditing firm found that the largest chunk of taxes businesses pay is  
property tax, followed by sales taxes. Corporate income tax was a  
distant third. In Oregon, businesses pay moderate property taxes, no  
sales tax and a middling corporate income tax rate, all of which make  
their overall tax burden among the lowest in the nation. Ernst &  
Young found that Oregon?s tax burden on businesses is the second  
lowest in the country. Critics of 67 dispute the Ernst & Young study.  
?We think the methodology is wrong and it leaves out some things,?  
says Pat McCormick, a spokesman for the ?no? side. It?s worth noting  
the Legislative Revenue Office was comfortable enough with the Ernst  
& Young study to have relied on it in its November analysis of the  
tax measures
_______________________________________________
GroveNet mailing list
GroveNet at rdrop.com
http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet

_______________________________________________
GroveNet mailing list
GroveNet at rdrop.com
http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet




From ocollaugh at comcast.net  Sun Jan 24 11:00:00 2010
From: ocollaugh at comcast.net (donkelly)
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 2010 19:00:00 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: [Grovenet] An interesting view on 66 and 67 . . .
In-Reply-To: <2124139201-1264358145-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1362903197-@bda284.bisx.prod.on.blackberry>
Message-ID: <2121920337.14957621264359600097.JavaMail.root@sz0024a.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net>

Yes, some would see it as a bribe, rendering support by members while receiving money from the government, a bribe.

It appears no different than two states accepting bribes to support the bloated health care bill without change.

don
----- Original Message -----
From: Steve <nospam03 at comcast.net>
To: Forest Grove local interests list <grovenet at rdrop.com>
Sent: Sun, 24 Jan 2010 18:35:41 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: Re: [Grovenet] An interesting view on 66 and 67 . . .

AARP has an insurance arm. An agreement was made that would profit them. 
-----Original Message-----
From: donkelly <ocollaugh at comcast.net>
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 2010 17:54:56 
To: Forest Grove local interests list<grovenet at rdrop.com>
Subject: Re: [Grovenet] An interesting view on 66 and 67 . . .

AARP sent a letter explaining why they supported the health care bill as it was, without holding out for changes. 

It was pathetic. 

I quit AARP and others of unknown numbers are quitting too. 

We believe that AARP accepted a bribe for their support.

If the cost of health care goes up, what's in it for AARP?

But others may know more about that glitch and can provide less acidic comments about why AARP rolled over.

donkelly



From jo.david at verizon.net  Sun Jan 24 12:05:41 2010
From: jo.david at verizon.net (David Morelli)
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 2010 12:05:41 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] An interesting view on 66 and 67 . . .
In-Reply-To: <1191707820.14954951264359091289.JavaMail.root@sz0024a.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net>
References: <1191707820.14954951264359091289.JavaMail.root@sz0024a.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net>
Message-ID: <648609CC-C1DD-4B19-B24D-070E34554647@verizon.net>

What someone sees in an argument is influenced by what they want to see in an argument.  ( me included )

Steve posted that states with higher business taxes have lower wages.

And  donkelly posted that states that allow illegals to take jobs have lower wages.

Which is cause, and which is effect?  

Do businesses hire illegals to keep wages low?

Does the influx of illegals increase demand for social services?

Do states with lower wages collect less tax revenue from low wage earners than if they were higher wage earners?

Do states with high demand for social services and less revenue from wage earners, turn to higher business taxes?

David

On Jan 24, 2010, at 10:51 AM, donkelly wrote:

> I believe you can add to that mix that states who allow illegals to walk in and take jobs, also integrally have lower wages.
> 
> don
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Steve <nospam03 at comcast.net>
> 
> I posted an article showing that states with higher business taxes have lower wages. 
> Did you bother to read that?



From osubuckeye59 at yahoo.com  Sun Jan 24 16:11:30 2010
From: osubuckeye59 at yahoo.com (Allen Warren)
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 2010 16:11:30 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [Grovenet] An interesting view on 66 and 67 . . .
In-Reply-To: <648609CC-C1DD-4B19-B24D-070E34554647@verizon.net>
References: <1191707820.14954951264359091289.JavaMail.root@sz0024a.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net>
	<648609CC-C1DD-4B19-B24D-070E34554647@verizon.net>
Message-ID: <131257.14187.qm@web112105.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>

One of my frustrations w/much of the talk & ads on the Measures is the focus on how non-passage job loss is do to Businesses and Wealthy Individuals/Families not paying their fare share when there's another aspect that should be communicated more broadly, IMHO, and this aspect is state employee hiring numbers, their pay, health insurance and PERS costs.

According to the Oregon Department of Administrative Services figures, in 2008 the average state employee was
paid $47,724 in salary and $20,407 in benefits for a total compensation
of $68,131. In 2009 the average state employee will be paid $48,459 in
salary and $20,569 in benefits for a total of $69,028. The $897
increase in average compensation is after an average of $2,682 was
subtracted for mandatory time off without pay called furlough days.  This means that Oregon taxpayers will pay more for receiving less service because the avg. Oregon state employee will earn more for working several days less in '09 vs. '08.


During labor negotiations it was determined that more money could be
?saved? by actually closing agencies during furlough days rather than
staggering the employees hours to enable the agencies to remain open to
serve the public.  For instance, Friday November 27th was a furlough day when state
agencies were closed. This gave state
employees a four day Thanksgiving weekend and also prevented the public
from accessing state services for four consecutive days. Some personnel
such as Department of Correction officers, Oregon State Police
officers, and emergency staff for the Department of Human Services will
be working on furlough days to provide critical services, but their
offices will not be open during these state mandatory days off.

According to the Legislative Fiscal Office, Oregon has more than
50,000 full time equivalent (FTE) employees. An FTE is one full time
position employed for 24 months. Oregon has added more than 1,700 new state employees since the Legislature adjourned June 30, 2009.

By definition in state law, state employees do not include employees
of special districts, cities, counties, school districts, education
service districts, community colleges, universities, and those who work
for the Legislature, Governor, Secretary of State, Treasurer or other
statewide elected officials, those who work for non-government
organizations with state taxpayer funding, or of course, any federal 
employees.  Well more than 170,000 people actually work for the various state government entities in Oregon. 

Other courses of action were available to reduce employee payroll costs without reducing services.  For
instance, state employees do not contribute toward their health
insurance premiums. In contrast, according to the Oregon Educators
Benefit Board, the average Oregon K-12 teacher pays about $187 per
month toward their health insurance premiums. If Oregon state employees
would agree to a similar health insurance premium contribution the
savings to taxpayers would exceed $225 million per budget cycle.  Altering vacation time, sick leave, personal days, family leave and
other work time benefits could reduce the number of employees required.
Many state employees actually work less than 200 days per year when all
these work leave benefits are combined. This requires as many as 20%
more state employees to keep the positions staffed to serve the public.

Altering the PERS employer contribution
is another available venue for savings. The current system is one of
the most generous and costly benefits in the nation. As a result of PERS' $17 billion investment loss in 2008, every state
agency, municipality and school district that participates in the
system is staring at an average 50 percent increase in the base rates
PERS charges to fund their employees' retirement benefits in 2011 and
2012. Unless the pension
fund's board changes its rate-setting rules, meaning its investment
portfolio would have had to generate a 26 percent return in 2009, these rate increases
are guaranteed. What does that mean to all of us? Fewer teachers, police and
firefighters. Less of every service that government provides. Higher
fees and taxes. Perhaps all of the above. 

Consider financially
strapped Bend, which in October of last year completed its fifth round of layoffs since
2007. Projected increases in Bend's PERS costs for public safety
employees alone are equal to paying 17 police officers. That's in a
department that is currently considered understaffed with 86.

For Salem-Keizer Public Schools, which pared $27 million in costs from
its latest budget, the looming PERS increases equal almost 220
teachers, or 16 school days. Looking at it another way, state agencies'
new PERS costs next biennium would equal nearly 60 percent of the $733
million in corporate and personal income tax increases that we're being asked to approve.  Statewide, it's at least a $1 billion problem in the next biennium. After that, it gets worse. 

The
base rate that public agencies pay to support employees' retirement
benefits could double in the next five years, according to the PERS
actuary, Mercer Inc. If rates reach that level, the retirement system
will gobble one quarter of every tax dollar that goes into a public
agency to support payrolls. 

This is the type of information I think is missing from the discussion.  I agree that businesses and wealthy individuals could be paying more, but it's important to note that state employees could be contributing more as well.


Allen Warren

From: David Morelli <jo.david at verizon.net>

To: Forest Grove local interests list <grovenet at rdrop.com>
Sent: Sun, January 24, 2010 12:05:41 PM
Subject: Re: [Grovenet] An interesting view on 66 and 67 . . .

What someone sees in an argument is influenced by what they want to see in an argument.  ( me included )

Steve posted that states with higher business taxes have lower wages.

And  donkelly posted that states that allow illegals to take jobs have lower wages.

Which is cause, and which is effect?  

Do businesses hire illegals to keep wages low?

Does the influx of illegals increase demand for social services?

Do states with lower wages collect less tax revenue from low wage earners than if they were higher wage earners?

Do states with high demand for social services and less revenue from wage earners, turn to higher business taxes?

David

On Jan 24, 2010, at 10:51 AM, donkelly wrote:

> I believe you can add to that mix that states who allow illegals to walk in and take jobs, also integrally have lower wages.
> 
> don
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Steve <nospam03 at comcast.net>
> 
> I posted an article showing that states with higher business taxes have lower wages. 
> Did you bother to read that?


_______________________________________________
GroveNet mailing list
GroveNet at rdrop.com
http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet



      

From tosca at prodigy.net  Mon Jan 25 18:01:09 2010
From: tosca at prodigy.net (Bonnie B. Combs)
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2010 18:01:09 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [Grovenet] Police activity
Message-ID: <297767.44180.qm@web81401.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Dose anybody know what was involved in the police activity at Pacific and C Street this afternoon around 3 p.m.?

Always inquisitive,

Bonnie


From whatsupy2k at yahoo.com  Mon Jan 25 18:12:51 2010
From: whatsupy2k at yahoo.com (Vickie Madeoneup)
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2010 18:12:51 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [Grovenet] Police activity
In-Reply-To: <297767.44180.qm@web81401.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <297767.44180.qm@web81401.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <422556.91040.qm@web112402.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>

Some students from Forest Grove Community School were crossing the street at the crosswalk with a volunteer crossing guard. A car stopped for the students but the car behind them didn't.

For safety reasons it would be nice if that area was marked as a school zone.

Vickie




The Transportation System Plan is open for review.  The City's Annual Town Hall is supposed to have it available for comment.  I have been proposing a
light a Yew/Adair and was told that ODOT doesn't like signals on their
highways, so they don't want any signals on Yew.  There is supposed to
be an alternative offered at the meeting that covers a variety of
changes to the system, including lights at Yew Street, and changes to
the Highway 47 / Tualatin Valley Highway intersection at
Pacific/Quince.  I have proposed that 19th should continue as a one-way
past Hwy 47 to increase safety and capacity, while improving traffic flow,
pedestrian access and reducing vehicle wait.  The proposal includes
reduced speeds on the South approach to the intersection so that we
don't have 45 mph trucks ripping through the yellow light.  The traffic
on 19th would be 25 mph in the proposal, because that works well with
the signal timing, and the neighboring properties are residential.

There is a proposal on the table to put a traffic light at the Highway 47 and B Street intersection.  I have proposed that it
be coordinated with a proposed light at Maple Street/Hwy 47, the
proposed changes to Pacific, a proposed light at 24th/Hwy 47 and the
existing light at Sunset Drive to improve the safety and crossing
opportunities at Elm Street, Poplar Street, Martin Road and Porter Road.

With
proper planning, a light at Dilley can be coordinated with a light at
'B' Street, so that there is no reduction in traffic capacity or travel
speed, while providing improved opportunity for traffic to cross or
merge with Hwy 47.  

David


________________________________
From: Bonnie B. Combs <tosca at prodigy.net>
To: grovenet <grovenet at rdrop.com>
Sent: Mon, January 25, 2010 6:01:09 PM
Subject: [Grovenet] Police activity

Dose anybody know what was involved in the police activity at Pacific and C Street this afternoon around 3 p.m.?

Always inquisitive,

Bonnie

_______________________________________________
GroveNet mailing list
GroveNet at rdrop.com
http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet



      

From g-g-steele at comcast.net  Mon Jan 25 19:36:04 2010
From: g-g-steele at comcast.net (Geri)
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2010 19:36:04 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] Police activity
References: <297767.44180.qm@web81401.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <EFE8C46AE463464FA0E401357843B221@gerianehzkfhvy>

I heard on the radio something about an accident at Pacific & A St.....


Geri

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Bonnie B. Combs" <tosca at prodigy.net>
To: "grovenet" <grovenet at rdrop.com>
Sent: Monday, January 25, 2010 6:01 PM
Subject: [Grovenet] Police activity


> Dose anybody know what was involved in the police activity at Pacific and C Street this afternoon around 3 p.m.?
> 
> Always inquisitive,
> 
> Bonnie
> 
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>



From waltw at teleport.com  Mon Jan 25 20:00:11 2010
From: waltw at teleport.com (Walt Wentz)
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2010 20:00:11 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] Rally postponed
Message-ID: <B36088DC-2195-4AF2-A595-D9B0D8C788F6@teleport.com>

Hello!
The MoveOn-sponsored rally to rescue health care reform has been  
postponed, since tomorrow is election Day and we want to avoid any  
implication of improper political activity on Election Day.
Walt


From ocollaugh at comcast.net  Mon Jan 25 20:15:38 2010
From: ocollaugh at comcast.net (donkelly)
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2010 04:15:38 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: [Grovenet] Rally postponed
In-Reply-To: <B36088DC-2195-4AF2-A595-D9B0D8C788F6@teleport.com>
Message-ID: <1919994250.15618111264479338312.JavaMail.root@sz0024a.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net>

Good idea I think, to look more carefully at the pros and cons before committing. I think we can do it better.
donkelly

----- Original Message -----
From: Walt Wentz <waltw at teleport.com>
To: wcchd at yahoogroups.com
Cc: Forest Grove local interests list <grovenet at rdrop.com>
Sent: Tue, 26 Jan 2010 04:00:11 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: [Grovenet] Rally postponed

Hello!
The MoveOn-sponsored rally to rescue health care reform has been  
postponed, since tomorrow is election Day and we want to avoid any  
implication of improper political activity on Election Day.
Walt

_______________________________________________
GroveNet mailing list
GroveNet at rdrop.com
http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet



From waltw at teleport.com  Tue Jan 26 23:13:24 2010
From: waltw at teleport.com (Walt Wentz)
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2010 23:13:24 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] Health care rescue rally rescheduled
Message-ID: <B54C6124-167A-4988-A5B9-3FE7328C1873@teleport.com>

Hello, All:
MoveOn.org decided to shift all Oregon events to Thursday, to avoid  
conflicts with the special election. Accordingly, the Forest Grove  
health care rescue rally will be held in conjunction with the regular  
weekly peace rally, which takes place at 4:30-5:30 p.m., Thursday, in  
front of the library.
A link to the MoveOn event:
http://pol.moveon.org/event/events/event.html?event_id=100670
Hope to see you there!
Walt Wentz


From gduncangates at yahoo.com  Wed Jan 27 08:12:53 2010
From: gduncangates at yahoo.com (Gary Duncan-Gates)
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 08:12:53 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [Grovenet] Health care rescue rally rescheduled
In-Reply-To: <B54C6124-167A-4988-A5B9-3FE7328C1873@teleport.com>
References: <B54C6124-167A-4988-A5B9-3FE7328C1873@teleport.com>
Message-ID: <571447.91066.qm@web46313.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>

Mr. Wentz does not want to pay for his own healthcare.  He wants you, and more likely, your children and grandchildren to pay for his healthcare.

If you don't want to pay for your own healthcare, and would rather have your friends and neighbors, under threat of imprisonment, pay it for you, by all means, attend this gathering.

If you believe in individualism and self-sufficiency, well, apparently this is not the state for you.

Gary




________________________________
From: Walt Wentz <waltw at teleport.com>
To: Forest Grove local interests list <grovenet at rdrop.com>
Sent: Tue, January 26, 2010 11:13:24 PM
Subject: [Grovenet] Health care rescue rally rescheduled

Hello, All:
MoveOn.org decided to shift all Oregon events to Thursday, to avoid  
conflicts with the special election. Accordingly, the Forest Grove  
health care rescue rally will be held in conjunction with the regular  
weekly peace rally, which takes place at 4:30-5:30 p.m., Thursday, in  
front of the library.
A link to the MoveOn event:
http://pol.moveon.org/event/events/event.html?event_id=100670
Hope to see you there!
Walt Wentz

_______________________________________________
GroveNet mailing list
GroveNet at rdrop.com
http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet



      

From admin at jeffhowden.com  Wed Jan 27 08:22:59 2010
From: admin at jeffhowden.com (Jeff Howden)
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 08:22:59 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] Health care rescue rally rescheduled
In-Reply-To: <571447.91066.qm@web46313.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
References: <B54C6124-167A-4988-A5B9-3FE7328C1873@teleport.com>
	<571447.91066.qm@web46313.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <05ba01ca9f6c$fe49e360$faddaa20$@com>

Gary,

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> From: Gary Duncan-Gates
> 
> Mr. Wentz does not want to pay for his own healthcare.  He wants
> you, and more likely, your children and grandchildren to pay for
> his healthcare.
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

For not being Mr. Wentz, you sure do seem to have quite the position on what
he thinks.  Perhaps you could keep your posts to what *you* think and not
(assuming) what others think?

Jeff



From osubuckeye59 at yahoo.com  Wed Jan 27 08:30:25 2010
From: osubuckeye59 at yahoo.com (Allen Warren)
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 08:30:25 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [Grovenet] Health care rescue rally rescheduled
In-Reply-To: <571447.91066.qm@web46313.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
References: <B54C6124-167A-4988-A5B9-3FE7328C1873@teleport.com>
	<571447.91066.qm@web46313.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <189055.87646.qm@web112107.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>

Good or bad, the tea leaves are showing healthcare reform is itself on life support.  With Brown getting elected in MA, Congressional Democrats are now not as focused on the healthcare bill as previous.  Pelosi and other Dem leaders are saying they're still committed, but there's much uneasiness even in the Dem ranks.  As Rep. Shelley Berkley, D-Nev. put it, "If someone's losing their house, lost their job, the last thing they
care about is their next door neighbor's health care.  Health care isn't the No. 1 issue on their minds. If it's not the No. 1 issue on my
constituents' minds, it's not the No. 1 issue on my mind."

I don't see Obama necessarily giving up on healthcare reform, and I have no doubt he'll say something about it in his speech tonight, but I do see many of his party now very uneasy about continuing to focus on national healthcare as the #1 issue, regardless of how many rallies are held.

 
Allen Warren



________________________________
From: Gary Duncan-Gates <gduncangates at yahoo.com>
To: Forest Grove local interests list <grovenet at rdrop.com>
Sent: Wed, January 27, 2010 8:12:53 AM
Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Health care rescue rally rescheduled

Mr. Wentz does not want to pay for his own healthcare.  He wants you, and more likely, your children and grandchildren to pay for his healthcare.

If you don't want to pay for your own healthcare, and would rather have your friends and neighbors, under threat of imprisonment, pay it for you, by all means, attend this gathering.

If you believe in individualism and self-sufficiency, well, apparently this is not the state for you.

Gary

_______________________________
From: Walt Wentz <waltw at teleport.com>
To: Forest Grove local interests list <grovenet at rdrop.com>
Sent: Tue, January 26, 2010 11:13:24 PM
Subject: [Grovenet] Health care rescue rally rescheduled

Hello, All:
MoveOn.org decided to shift all Oregon events to Thursday, to avoid  
conflicts with the special election. Accordingly, the Forest Grove  
health care rescue rally will be held in conjunction with the regular  
weekly peace rally, which takes place at 4:30-5:30 p.m., Thursday, in  
front of the library.
A link to the MoveOn event:
http://pol.moveon.org/event/events/event.html?event_id=100670
Hope to see you there!
Walt Wentz

_______________________________________________
GroveNet mailing list
GroveNet at rdrop.com
http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet



      
_______________________________________________
GroveNet mailing list
GroveNet at rdrop.com
http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet



      

From ocollaugh at comcast.net  Wed Jan 27 09:12:11 2010
From: ocollaugh at comcast.net (donkelly)
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 17:12:11 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: [Grovenet] Health care rescue rally rescheduled
In-Reply-To: <189055.87646.qm@web112107.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <1688233816.16259601264612331300.JavaMail.root@sz0024a.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net>

Who in history said, "give me a place to stand, and a long lever, and I can move the world".

Good health to all

donkelly
----- Original Message -----
From: Allen Warren <osubuckeye59 at yahoo.com>
To: Forest Grove local interests list <grovenet at rdrop.com>
Sent: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 16:30:25 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Health care rescue rally rescheduled

Good or bad, the tea leaves are showing healthcare reform is itself on life support.  With Brown getting elected in MA, Congressional Democrats are now not as focused on the healthcare bill as previous.  Pelosi and other Dem leaders are saying they're still committed, but there's much uneasiness even in the Dem ranks.  As Rep. Shelley Berkley, D-Nev. put it, "If someone's losing their house, lost their job, the last thing they
care about is their next door neighbor's health care.  Health care isn't the No. 1 issue on their minds. If it's not the No. 1 issue on my
constituents' minds, it's not the No. 1 issue on my mind."

I don't see Obama necessarily giving up on healthcare reform, and I have no doubt he'll say something about it in his speech tonight, but I do see many of his party now very uneasy about continuing to focus on national healthcare as the #1 issue, regardless of how many rallies are held.

 
Allen Warren



________________________________
From: Gary Duncan-Gates <gduncangates at yahoo.com>
To: Forest Grove local interests list <grovenet at rdrop.com>
Sent: Wed, January 27, 2010 8:12:53 AM
Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Health care rescue rally rescheduled

Mr. Wentz does not want to pay for his own healthcare.  He wants you, and more likely, your children and grandchildren to pay for his healthcare.

If you don't want to pay for your own healthcare, and would rather have your friends and neighbors, under threat of imprisonment, pay it for you, by all means, attend this gathering.

If you believe in individualism and self-sufficiency, well, apparently this is not the state for you.

Gary

_______________________________
From: Walt Wentz <waltw at teleport.com>
To: Forest Grove local interests list <grovenet at rdrop.com>
Sent: Tue, January 26, 2010 11:13:24 PM
Subject: [Grovenet] Health care rescue rally rescheduled

Hello, All:
MoveOn.org decided to shift all Oregon events to Thursday, to avoid  
conflicts with the special election. Accordingly, the Forest Grove  
health care rescue rally will be held in conjunction with the regular  
weekly peace rally, which takes place at 4:30-5:30 p.m., Thursday, in  
front of the library.
A link to the MoveOn event:
http://pol.moveon.org/event/events/event.html?event_id=100670
Hope to see you there!
Walt Wentz

_______________________________________________
GroveNet mailing list
GroveNet at rdrop.com
http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet



      
_______________________________________________
GroveNet mailing list
GroveNet at rdrop.com
http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet



      
_______________________________________________
GroveNet mailing list
GroveNet at rdrop.com
http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet



From waltw at teleport.com  Wed Jan 27 09:45:15 2010
From: waltw at teleport.com (Walt Wentz)
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 09:45:15 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] Health care rescue rally rescheduled
In-Reply-To: <571447.91066.qm@web46313.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
References: <B54C6124-167A-4988-A5B9-3FE7328C1873@teleport.com>
	<571447.91066.qm@web46313.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <37C86B41-4755-4420-AB3D-EF2D6F367E9E@teleport.com>

Hey, Gary, I'm on Medicare! So are "you" paying for it? Yep. But  
then, so am "I."
So what do you propose? That the working poor, and those who can't  
afford criminally high-cost insurance, should just die in a ditch  
somewhere... hopefully tastefully out of the sight of "you and your  
children and your grandchildren?"
Walt (Or Mr. Wentz, if you insist)
On Jan 27, 2010, at 8:12 AM, Gary Duncan-Gates wrote:

> Mr. Wentz does not want to pay for his own healthcare.  He wants  
> you, and more likely, your children and grandchildren to pay for  
> his healthcare.
>
> If you don't want to pay for your own healthcare, and would rather  
> have your friends and neighbors, under threat of imprisonment, pay  
> it for you, by all means, attend this gathering.
>
> If you believe in individualism and self-sufficiency, well,  
> apparently this is not the state for you.
>
> Gary
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Walt Wentz <waltw at teleport.com>
> To: Forest Grove local interests list <grovenet at rdrop.com>
> Sent: Tue, January 26, 2010 11:13:24 PM
> Subject: [Grovenet] Health care rescue rally rescheduled
>
> Hello, All:
> MoveOn.org decided to shift all Oregon events to Thursday, to avoid
> conflicts with the special election. Accordingly, the Forest Grove
> health care rescue rally will be held in conjunction with the regular
> weekly peace rally, which takes place at 4:30-5:30 p.m., Thursday, in
> front of the library.
> A link to the MoveOn event:
> http://pol.moveon.org/event/events/event.html?event_id=100670
> Hope to see you there!
> Walt Wentz
>
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet



From waltw at teleport.com  Wed Jan 27 09:58:12 2010
From: waltw at teleport.com (Walt Wentz)
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 09:58:12 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] Health care rescue rally rescheduled
In-Reply-To: <189055.87646.qm@web112107.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
References: <B54C6124-167A-4988-A5B9-3FE7328C1873@teleport.com>
	<571447.91066.qm@web46313.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
	<189055.87646.qm@web112107.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <9F10F038-8821-4F09-820D-C079701F61F5@teleport.com>

Sadly, all too true. There doesn't seem to be much hope for rational  
health care reform now. About the best that can be hoped for is to  
let the powers that be know that it's still a major public need, and  
to make sure the onus is on those who scuttled it this time around.
But then neither is turning the economy/employment market around  
likely to be an easy fix. It took years of corporate and financial  
malfeasance to work us into this hole, and it will take enormous (and  
highly unlikely) cooperation and sacrifice from the corporate and  
financial interests to dig us out of it. Obama has some good  
intentions, but he's working with a fragmented party against  
monolithic and incredibly wealthy opposition.  Idealistic he may be,  
but FDR he ain't.
Walt Wentz
On Jan 27, 2010, at 8:30 AM, Allen Warren wrote:

> Good or bad, the tea leaves are showing healthcare reform is itself  
> on life support.  With Brown getting elected in MA, Congressional  
> Democrats are now not as focused on the healthcare bill as  
> previous.  Pelosi and other Dem leaders are saying they're still  
> committed, but there's much uneasiness even in the Dem ranks.  As  
> Rep. Shelley Berkley, D-Nev. put it, "If someone's losing their  
> house, lost their job, the last thing they
> care about is their next door neighbor's health care.  Health care  
> isn't the No. 1 issue on their minds. If it's not the No. 1 issue  
> on my
> constituents' minds, it's not the No. 1 issue on my mind."
>
> I don't see Obama necessarily giving up on healthcare reform, and I  
> have no doubt he'll say something about it in his speech tonight,  
> but I do see many of his party now very uneasy about continuing to  
> focus on national healthcare as the #1 issue, regardless of how  
> many rallies are held.
>
>
> Allen Warren
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Gary Duncan-Gates <gduncangates at yahoo.com>
> To: Forest Grove local interests list <grovenet at rdrop.com>
> Sent: Wed, January 27, 2010 8:12:53 AM
> Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Health care rescue rally rescheduled
>
> Mr. Wentz does not want to pay for his own healthcare.  He wants  
> you, and more likely, your children and grandchildren to pay for  
> his healthcare.
>
> If you don't want to pay for your own healthcare, and would rather  
> have your friends and neighbors, under threat of imprisonment, pay  
> it for you, by all means, attend this gathering.
>
> If you believe in individualism and self-sufficiency, well,  
> apparently this is not the state for you.
>
> Gary
>
> _______________________________
> From: Walt Wentz <waltw at teleport.com>
> To: Forest Grove local interests list <grovenet at rdrop.com>
> Sent: Tue, January 26, 2010 11:13:24 PM
> Subject: [Grovenet] Health care rescue rally rescheduled
>
> Hello, All:
> MoveOn.org decided to shift all Oregon events to Thursday, to avoid
> conflicts with the special election. Accordingly, the Forest Grove
> health care rescue rally will be held in conjunction with the regular
> weekly peace rally, which takes place at 4:30-5:30 p.m., Thursday, in
> front of the library.
> A link to the MoveOn event:
> http://pol.moveon.org/event/events/event.html?event_id=100670
> Hope to see you there!
> Walt Wentz
>
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet



From waltw at teleport.com  Wed Jan 27 10:03:04 2010
From: waltw at teleport.com (Walt Wentz)
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 10:03:04 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] Health care rescue rally rescheduled
In-Reply-To: <1688233816.16259601264612331300.JavaMail.root@sz0024a.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net>
References: <1688233816.16259601264612331300.JavaMail.root@sz0024a.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net>
Message-ID: <4BC94ECB-C5EF-4468-8169-FD3BF52FAA51@teleport.com>

That was Archimedes, the grandfather of modern mechanics.
But whether one person can "move the world" anymore is highly  
dubious. A lot of people, working together, can accomplish something,  
though they may have to try many times.
Walt

On Jan 27, 2010, at 9:12 AM, donkelly wrote:

> Who in history said, "give me a place to stand, and a long lever,  
> and I can move the world".
>
> Good health to all
>
> donkelly
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Allen Warren <osubuckeye59 at yahoo.com>
> To: Forest Grove local interests list <grovenet at rdrop.com>
> Sent: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 16:30:25 +0000 (UTC)
> Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Health care rescue rally rescheduled
>
> Good or bad, the tea leaves are showing healthcare reform is itself  
> on life support.  With Brown getting elected in MA, Congressional  
> Democrats are now not as focused on the healthcare bill as  
> previous.  Pelosi and other Dem leaders are saying they're still  
> committed, but there's much uneasiness even in the Dem ranks.  As  
> Rep. Shelley Berkley, D-Nev. put it, "If someone's losing their  
> house, lost their job, the last thing they
> care about is their next door neighbor's health care.  Health care  
> isn't the No. 1 issue on their minds. If it's not the No. 1 issue  
> on my
> constituents' minds, it's not the No. 1 issue on my mind."
>
> I don't see Obama necessarily giving up on healthcare reform, and I  
> have no doubt he'll say something about it in his speech tonight,  
> but I do see many of his party now very uneasy about continuing to  
> focus on national healthcare as the #1 issue, regardless of how  
> many rallies are held.
>
>
> Allen Warren
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Gary Duncan-Gates <gduncangates at yahoo.com>
> To: Forest Grove local interests list <grovenet at rdrop.com>
> Sent: Wed, January 27, 2010 8:12:53 AM
> Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Health care rescue rally rescheduled
>
> Mr. Wentz does not want to pay for his own healthcare.  He wants  
> you, and more likely, your children and grandchildren to pay for  
> his healthcare.
>
> If you don't want to pay for your own healthcare, and would rather  
> have your friends and neighbors, under threat of imprisonment, pay  
> it for you, by all means, attend this gathering.
>
> If you believe in individualism and self-sufficiency, well,  
> apparently this is not the state for you.
>
> Gary
>
> _______________________________
> From: Walt Wentz <waltw at teleport.com>
> To: Forest Grove local interests list <grovenet at rdrop.com>
> Sent: Tue, January 26, 2010 11:13:24 PM
> Subject: [Grovenet] Health care rescue rally rescheduled
>
> Hello, All:
> MoveOn.org decided to shift all Oregon events to Thursday, to avoid
> conflicts with the special election. Accordingly, the Forest Grove
> health care rescue rally will be held in conjunction with the regular
> weekly peace rally, which takes place at 4:30-5:30 p.m., Thursday, in
> front of the library.
> A link to the MoveOn event:
> http://pol.moveon.org/event/events/event.html?event_id=100670
> Hope to see you there!
> Walt Wentz
>
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet



From Jamsm at aol.com  Wed Jan 27 10:07:37 2010
From: Jamsm at aol.com (Jamsm at aol.com)
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 13:07:37 EST
Subject: [Grovenet] Health care rescue rally rescheduled
Message-ID: <34f3a.6a76c99.3891dae9@aol.com>


Yes - Health care system is broken ! 
 
But is the liberal solution the answer?  Absolutely NOT!
 
Will the elected officials actually come up with a solution that  is fair 
to all?
Don't hold your breath as you can't make everyone happy with issues this  
complex.
 
Am glad the Marxists are 'quitting' their position  and/or dumping their 
support of the socialist health care plan.  Death  to the 'Move-On' Marxist 
organization!  Tea-Party Time! 
 
The Grouch
 
 
In a message dated 1/27/2010 12:45:11 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,  
waltw at teleport.com writes:

Hey,  Gary, I'm on Medicare! So are "you" paying for it? Yep. But  
then, so  am "I."
So what do you propose? That the working poor, and those who  can't  
afford criminally high-cost insurance, should just die in a  ditch  
somewhere... hopefully tastefully out of the sight of "you and  your  
children and your grandchildren?"
Walt (Or Mr. Wentz, if you  insist)
On Jan 27, 2010, at 8:12 AM, Gary Duncan-Gates wrote:

>  Mr. Wentz does not want to pay for his own healthcare.  He wants   
> you, and more likely, your children and grandchildren to pay  for  
> his healthcare.
>
> If you don't want to pay  for your own healthcare, and would rather  
> have your friends and  neighbors, under threat of imprisonment, pay  
> it for you, by all  means, attend this gathering.
>
> If you believe in individualism  and self-sufficiency, well,  
> apparently this is not the state  for you.
>
> Gary
>
>
>
>
>  ________________________________
> From: Walt Wentz  <waltw at teleport.com>
> To: Forest Grove local interests list  <grovenet at rdrop.com>
> Sent: Tue, January 26, 2010 11:13:24  PM
> Subject: [Grovenet] Health care rescue rally  rescheduled
>
> Hello, All:
> MoveOn.org decided to shift  all Oregon events to Thursday, to avoid
> conflicts with the special  election. Accordingly, the Forest Grove
> health care rescue rally will  be held in conjunction with the regular
> weekly peace rally, which  takes place at 4:30-5:30 p.m., Thursday, in
> front of the  library.
> A link to the MoveOn event:
>  http://pol.moveon.org/event/events/event.html?event_id=100670
> Hope to  see you there!
> Walt Wentz
>
>  _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing  list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
>  http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>
>
>
>
>  _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing  list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
>  http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet


_______________________________________________
GroveNet  mailing  list
GroveNet at rdrop.com
http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet


From waltw at teleport.com  Wed Jan 27 10:20:22 2010
From: waltw at teleport.com (Walt Wentz)
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 10:20:22 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] Health care rescue rally rescheduled
In-Reply-To: <34f3a.6a76c99.3891dae9@aol.com>
References: <34f3a.6a76c99.3891dae9@aol.com>
Message-ID: <1830FEF7-8893-42A0-925A-45C4AB6FC318@teleport.com>

Hooboy! Reading this, does anyone really wonder why we're sliding  
backwards into the 1890s?
Walt

On Jan 27, 2010, at 10:07 AM, Jamsm at aol.com wrote:

>
> Yes - Health care system is broken !
>
> But is the liberal solution the answer?  Absolutely NOT!
>
> Will the elected officials actually come up with a solution that   
> is fair
> to all?
> Don't hold your breath as you can't make everyone happy with issues  
> this
> complex.
>
> Am glad the Marxists are 'quitting' their position  and/or dumping  
> their
> support of the socialist health care plan.  Death  to the 'Move-On'  
> Marxist
> organization!  Tea-Party Time!
>
> The Grouch
>
>
> In a message dated 1/27/2010 12:45:11 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
> waltw at teleport.com writes:
>
> Hey,  Gary, I'm on Medicare! So are "you" paying for it? Yep. But
> then, so  am "I."
> So what do you propose? That the working poor, and those who  can't
> afford criminally high-cost insurance, should just die in a  ditch
> somewhere... hopefully tastefully out of the sight of "you and  your
> children and your grandchildren?"
> Walt (Or Mr. Wentz, if you  insist)
> On Jan 27, 2010, at 8:12 AM, Gary Duncan-Gates wrote:
>
>>  Mr. Wentz does not want to pay for his own healthcare.  He wants
>> you, and more likely, your children and grandchildren to pay  for
>> his healthcare.
>>
>> If you don't want to pay  for your own healthcare, and would rather
>> have your friends and  neighbors, under threat of imprisonment, pay
>> it for you, by all  means, attend this gathering.
>>
>> If you believe in individualism  and self-sufficiency, well,
>> apparently this is not the state  for you.
>>
>> Gary
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>  ________________________________
>> From: Walt Wentz  <waltw at teleport.com>
>> To: Forest Grove local interests list  <grovenet at rdrop.com>
>> Sent: Tue, January 26, 2010 11:13:24  PM
>> Subject: [Grovenet] Health care rescue rally  rescheduled
>>
>> Hello, All:
>> MoveOn.org decided to shift  all Oregon events to Thursday, to avoid
>> conflicts with the special  election. Accordingly, the Forest Grove
>> health care rescue rally will  be held in conjunction with the  
>> regular
>> weekly peace rally, which  takes place at 4:30-5:30 p.m.,  
>> Thursday, in
>> front of the  library.
>> A link to the MoveOn event:
>>  http://pol.moveon.org/event/events/event.html?event_id=100670
>> Hope to  see you there!
>> Walt Wentz
>>
>>  _______________________________________________
>> GroveNet mailing  list
>> GroveNet at rdrop.com
>>  http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>  _______________________________________________
>> GroveNet mailing  list
>> GroveNet at rdrop.com
>>  http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet  mailing  list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet



From osubuckeye59 at yahoo.com  Wed Jan 27 10:28:04 2010
From: osubuckeye59 at yahoo.com (Allen Warren)
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 10:28:04 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [Grovenet] Health care rescue rally rescheduled
In-Reply-To: <1830FEF7-8893-42A0-925A-45C4AB6FC318@teleport.com>
References: <34f3a.6a76c99.3891dae9@aol.com>
	<1830FEF7-8893-42A0-925A-45C4AB6FC318@teleport.com>
Message-ID: <712592.17548.qm@web112108.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>

If our elected officials can't seem to or flat out WON'T agree to work together, with the likes of Bill O'Reilly and Glenn Beck and Keith Obermann ranting and screaming, is it any wonder "we the people" are divisive?

 
Allen Warren

From: Walt Wentz <waltw at teleport.com>

To: Forest Grove local interests list <grovenet at rdrop.com>
Sent: Wed, January 27, 2010 10:20:22 AM
Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Health care rescue rally rescheduled

Hooboy! Reading this, does anyone really wonder why we're sliding  
backwards into the 1890s?
Walt

On Jan 27, 2010, at 10:07 AM, Jamsm at aol.com wrote:

>
> Yes - Health care system is broken !
>
> But is the liberal solution the answer?  Absolutely NOT!
>
> Will the elected officials actually come up with a solution that  
> is fair
> to all?
> Don't hold your breath as you can't make everyone happy with issues  
> this
> complex.
>
> Am glad the Marxists are 'quitting' their position  and/or dumping  
> their
> support of the socialist health care plan.  Death  to the 'Move-On'  
> Marxist
> organization!  Tea-Party Time!
>
> The Grouch
>
>
> In a message dated 1/27/2010 12:45:11 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
> waltw at teleport.com writes:
>
> Hey,  Gary, I'm on Medicare! So are "you" paying for it? Yep. But
> then, so  am "I."
> So what do you propose? That the working poor, and those who  can't
> afford criminally high-cost insurance, should just die in a  ditch
> somewhere... hopefully tastefully out of the sight of "you and  your
> children and your grandchildren?"
> Walt (Or Mr. Wentz, if you  insist)
> On Jan 27, 2010, at 8:12 AM, Gary Duncan-Gates wrote:
>
>>  Mr. Wentz does not want to pay for his own healthcare.  He wants
>> you, and more likely, your children and grandchildren to pay  for
>> his healthcare.
>>
>> If you don't want to pay  for your own healthcare, and would rather
>> have your friends and  neighbors, under threat of imprisonment, pay
>> it for you, by all  means, attend this gathering.
>>
>> If you believe in individualism  and self-sufficiency, well,
>> apparently this is not the state  for you.
>>
>> Gary
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>  ________________________________
>> From: Walt Wentz  <waltw at teleport.com>
>> To: Forest Grove local interests list  <grovenet at rdrop.com>
>> Sent: Tue, January 26, 2010 11:13:24  PM
>> Subject: [Grovenet] Health care rescue rally  rescheduled
>>
>> Hello, All:
>> MoveOn.org decided to shift  all Oregon events to Thursday, to avoid
>> conflicts with the special  election. Accordingly, the Forest Grove
>> health care rescue rally will  be held in conjunction with the  
>> regular
>> weekly peace rally, which  takes place at 4:30-5:30 p.m.,  
>> Thursday, in
>> front of the  library.
>> A link to the MoveOn event:
>>  http://pol.moveon.org/event/events/event.html?event_id=100670
>> Hope to  see you there!
>> Walt Wentz
>>
>>  _______________________________________________
>> GroveNet mailing  list
>> GroveNet at rdrop.com
>>  http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>  _______________________________________________
>> GroveNet mailing  list
>> GroveNet at rdrop.com
>>  http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet  mailing  list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet


_______________________________________________
GroveNet mailing list
GroveNet at rdrop.com
http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet



      

From ocollaugh at comcast.net  Wed Jan 27 10:32:55 2010
From: ocollaugh at comcast.net (donkelly)
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 18:32:55 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: [Grovenet] Health care rescue rally rescheduled
In-Reply-To: <4BC94ECB-C5EF-4468-8169-FD3BF52FAA51@teleport.com>
Message-ID: <1643537002.16301861264617175566.JavaMail.root@sz0024a.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net>

You just identified my point Walt.

There is strength in numbers.

Personally, I think spending money to clear up fraud in the health system we have costs far less than scrapping the whole thing and starting over.

Take one thing, in the total expenses, a small thing. Think in terms of the papers and books and manuals and the training programs that would have to be scrapped, then replaced. That pile could equal the bulk of the empire state building.

Then, small step too, every health worker would have to retrained, at huge costs to the tax payer.

So all along I have favored fixing what we have, and putting the frauders who caused our system to be so expensive, put them in jail.

That is tax money I am willing to pay.

respectfully,

donkelly

don

----- Original Message -----
From: Walt Wentz <waltw at teleport.com>
To: Forest Grove local interests list <grovenet at rdrop.com>
Sent: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 18:03:04 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Health care rescue rally rescheduled

That was Archimedes, the grandfather of modern mechanics.
But whether one person can "move the world" anymore is highly  
dubious. A lot of people, working together, can accomplish something,  
though they may have to try many times.
Walt

On Jan 27, 2010, at 9:12 AM, donkelly wrote:

> Who in history said, "give me a place to stand, and a long lever,  
> and I can move the world".
>
> Good health to all
>
> donkelly
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Allen Warren <osubuckeye59 at yahoo.com>
> To: Forest Grove local interests list <grovenet at rdrop.com>
> Sent: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 16:30:25 +0000 (UTC)
> Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Health care rescue rally rescheduled
>
> Good or bad, the tea leaves are showing healthcare reform is itself  
> on life support.  With Brown getting elected in MA, Congressional  
> Democrats are now not as focused on the healthcare bill as  
> previous.  Pelosi and other Dem leaders are saying they're still  
> committed, but there's much uneasiness even in the Dem ranks.  As  
> Rep. Shelley Berkley, D-Nev. put it, "If someone's losing their  
> house, lost their job, the last thing they
> care about is their next door neighbor's health care.  Health care  
> isn't the No. 1 issue on their minds. If it's not the No. 1 issue  
> on my
> constituents' minds, it's not the No. 1 issue on my mind."
>
> I don't see Obama necessarily giving up on healthcare reform, and I  
> have no doubt he'll say something about it in his speech tonight,  
> but I do see many of his party now very uneasy about continuing to  
> focus on national healthcare as the #1 issue, regardless of how  
> many rallies are held.
>
>
> Allen Warren
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Gary Duncan-Gates <gduncangates at yahoo.com>
> To: Forest Grove local interests list <grovenet at rdrop.com>
> Sent: Wed, January 27, 2010 8:12:53 AM
> Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Health care rescue rally rescheduled
>
> Mr. Wentz does not want to pay for his own healthcare.  He wants  
> you, and more likely, your children and grandchildren to pay for  
> his healthcare.
>
> If you don't want to pay for your own healthcare, and would rather  
> have your friends and neighbors, under threat of imprisonment, pay  
> it for you, by all means, attend this gathering.
>
> If you believe in individualism and self-sufficiency, well,  
> apparently this is not the state for you.
>
> Gary
>
> _______________________________
> From: Walt Wentz <waltw at teleport.com>
> To: Forest Grove local interests list <grovenet at rdrop.com>
> Sent: Tue, January 26, 2010 11:13:24 PM
> Subject: [Grovenet] Health care rescue rally rescheduled
>
> Hello, All:
> MoveOn.org decided to shift all Oregon events to Thursday, to avoid
> conflicts with the special election. Accordingly, the Forest Grove
> health care rescue rally will be held in conjunction with the regular
> weekly peace rally, which takes place at 4:30-5:30 p.m., Thursday, in
> front of the library.
> A link to the MoveOn event:
> http://pol.moveon.org/event/events/event.html?event_id=100670
> Hope to see you there!
> Walt Wentz
>
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet


_______________________________________________
GroveNet mailing list
GroveNet at rdrop.com
http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet



From ocollaugh at comcast.net  Wed Jan 27 10:36:33 2010
From: ocollaugh at comcast.net (donkelly)
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 18:36:33 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: [Grovenet] Health care rescue rally rescheduled
In-Reply-To: <712592.17548.qm@web112108.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <2105412202.16303471264617393202.JavaMail.root@sz0024a.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net>

Yes, but a president who continually lies divides me too, and I am a registered democrat........for awhile at least. 

Even my patience is growing thin. 

Obam just screams, "attack me" so outspoken people accomodate him.

donkelly

----- Original Message -----
From: Allen Warren <osubuckeye59 at yahoo.com>
To: Forest Grove local interests list <grovenet at rdrop.com>
Sent: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 18:28:04 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Health care rescue rally rescheduled

If our elected officials can't seem to or flat out WON'T agree to work together, with the likes of Bill O'Reilly and Glenn Beck and Keith Obermann ranting and screaming, is it any wonder "we the people" are divisive?

 
Allen Warren

From: Walt Wentz <waltw at teleport.com>

To: Forest Grove local interests list <grovenet at rdrop.com>
Sent: Wed, January 27, 2010 10:20:22 AM
Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Health care rescue rally rescheduled

Hooboy! Reading this, does anyone really wonder why we're sliding  
backwards into the 1890s?
Walt

On Jan 27, 2010, at 10:07 AM, Jamsm at aol.com wrote:

>
> Yes - Health care system is broken !
>
> But is the liberal solution the answer?  Absolutely NOT!
>
> Will the elected officials actually come up with a solution that  
> is fair
> to all?
> Don't hold your breath as you can't make everyone happy with issues  
> this
> complex.
>
> Am glad the Marxists are 'quitting' their position  and/or dumping  
> their
> support of the socialist health care plan.  Death  to the 'Move-On'  
> Marxist
> organization!  Tea-Party Time!
>
> The Grouch
>
>
> In a message dated 1/27/2010 12:45:11 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
> waltw at teleport.com writes:
>
> Hey,  Gary, I'm on Medicare! So are "you" paying for it? Yep. But
> then, so  am "I."
> So what do you propose? That the working poor, and those who  can't
> afford criminally high-cost insurance, should just die in a  ditch
> somewhere... hopefully tastefully out of the sight of "you and  your
> children and your grandchildren?"
> Walt (Or Mr. Wentz, if you  insist)
> On Jan 27, 2010, at 8:12 AM, Gary Duncan-Gates wrote:
>
>>  Mr. Wentz does not want to pay for his own healthcare.  He wants
>> you, and more likely, your children and grandchildren to pay  for
>> his healthcare.
>>
>> If you don't want to pay  for your own healthcare, and would rather
>> have your friends and  neighbors, under threat of imprisonment, pay
>> it for you, by all  means, attend this gathering.
>>
>> If you believe in individualism  and self-sufficiency, well,
>> apparently this is not the state  for you.
>>
>> Gary
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>  ________________________________
>> From: Walt Wentz  <waltw at teleport.com>
>> To: Forest Grove local interests list  <grovenet at rdrop.com>
>> Sent: Tue, January 26, 2010 11:13:24  PM
>> Subject: [Grovenet] Health care rescue rally  rescheduled
>>
>> Hello, All:
>> MoveOn.org decided to shift  all Oregon events to Thursday, to avoid
>> conflicts with the special  election. Accordingly, the Forest Grove
>> health care rescue rally will  be held in conjunction with the  
>> regular
>> weekly peace rally, which  takes place at 4:30-5:30 p.m.,  
>> Thursday, in
>> front of the  library.
>> A link to the MoveOn event:
>>  http://pol.moveon.org/event/events/event.html?event_id=100670
>> Hope to  see you there!
>> Walt Wentz
>>
>>  _______________________________________________
>> GroveNet mailing  list
>> GroveNet at rdrop.com
>>  http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>  _______________________________________________
>> GroveNet mailing  list
>> GroveNet at rdrop.com
>>  http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet  mailing  list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet


_______________________________________________
GroveNet mailing list
GroveNet at rdrop.com
http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet



      
_______________________________________________
GroveNet mailing list
GroveNet at rdrop.com
http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet



From waltw at teleport.com  Wed Jan 27 10:43:21 2010
From: waltw at teleport.com (Walt Wentz)
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 10:43:21 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] Health care rescue rally rescheduled
In-Reply-To: <712592.17548.qm@web112108.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
References: <34f3a.6a76c99.3891dae9@aol.com>
	<1830FEF7-8893-42A0-925A-45C4AB6FC318@teleport.com>
	<712592.17548.qm@web112108.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <F4CDB990-159E-49B3-914B-D100CB334E2A@teleport.com>

Indeed, it does seem that division is the mean spirit of the time.  
Any period of great financial stress on ordinary people seems to  
bring out the worst impulses in society. The 1890s, the "Gilded Age,"  
with its huge disparity of wealth,  brought about Anarchists,  
religious fundamentalists and robber barons. The Great Depression,  
with similar conditions, brought a resurgence of the Ku Klux Klan and  
public fascination with bandits like John Dillinger and Bonnie and  
Clyde, while Prohibition gave us the Mafia. Today, with the wealth  
concentrated in the top three percent of the population, while jobs  
and industrial infrastructure being shipped overseas-- with the  
connivance of government-- and irrational wars are draining the  
economy, things are likely to follow the same old pattern of division  
and mutual intolerance.
On Jan 27, 2010, at 10:28 AM, Allen Warren wrote:

> If our elected officials can't seem to or flat out WON'T agree to  
> work together, with the likes of Bill O'Reilly and Glenn Beck and  
> Keith Obermann ranting and screaming, is it any wonder "we the  
> people" are divisive?
>
>
> Allen Warren
>
> From: Walt Wentz <waltw at teleport.com>
>
> To: Forest Grove local interests list <grovenet at rdrop.com>
> Sent: Wed, January 27, 2010 10:20:22 AM
> Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Health care rescue rally rescheduled
>
> Hooboy! Reading this, does anyone really wonder why we're sliding
> backwards into the 1890s?
> Walt
>
> On Jan 27, 2010, at 10:07 AM, Jamsm at aol.com wrote:
>
>>
>> Yes - Health care system is broken !
>>
>> But is the liberal solution the answer?  Absolutely NOT!
>>
>> Will the elected officials actually come up with a solution that
>> is fair
>> to all?
>> Don't hold your breath as you can't make everyone happy with issues
>> this
>> complex.
>>
>> Am glad the Marxists are 'quitting' their position  and/or dumping
>> their
>> support of the socialist health care plan.  Death  to the 'Move-On'
>> Marxist
>> organization!  Tea-Party Time!
>>
>> The Grouch
>>
>>
>> In a message dated 1/27/2010 12:45:11 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
>> waltw at teleport.com writes:
>>
>> Hey,  Gary, I'm on Medicare! So are "you" paying for it? Yep. But
>> then, so  am "I."
>> So what do you propose? That the working poor, and those who  can't
>> afford criminally high-cost insurance, should just die in a  ditch
>> somewhere... hopefully tastefully out of the sight of "you and  your
>> children and your grandchildren?"
>> Walt (Or Mr. Wentz, if you  insist)
>> On Jan 27, 2010, at 8:12 AM, Gary Duncan-Gates wrote:
>>
>>>  Mr. Wentz does not want to pay for his own healthcare.  He wants
>>> you, and more likely, your children and grandchildren to pay  for
>>> his healthcare.
>>>
>>> If you don't want to pay  for your own healthcare, and would rather
>>> have your friends and  neighbors, under threat of imprisonment, pay
>>> it for you, by all  means, attend this gathering.
>>>
>>> If you believe in individualism  and self-sufficiency, well,
>>> apparently this is not the state  for you.
>>>
>>> Gary
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>  ________________________________
>>> From: Walt Wentz  <waltw at teleport.com>
>>> To: Forest Grove local interests list  <grovenet at rdrop.com>
>>> Sent: Tue, January 26, 2010 11:13:24  PM
>>> Subject: [Grovenet] Health care rescue rally  rescheduled
>>>
>>> Hello, All:
>>> MoveOn.org decided to shift  all Oregon events to Thursday, to avoid
>>> conflicts with the special  election. Accordingly, the Forest Grove
>>> health care rescue rally will  be held in conjunction with the
>>> regular
>>> weekly peace rally, which  takes place at 4:30-5:30 p.m.,
>>> Thursday, in
>>> front of the  library.
>>> A link to the MoveOn event:
>>>  http://pol.moveon.org/event/events/event.html?event_id=100670
>>> Hope to  see you there!
>>> Walt Wentz
>>>
>>>  _______________________________________________
>>> GroveNet mailing  list
>>> GroveNet at rdrop.com
>>>  http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>  _______________________________________________
>>> GroveNet mailing  list
>>> GroveNet at rdrop.com
>>>  http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> GroveNet  mailing  list
>> GroveNet at rdrop.com
>> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> GroveNet mailing list
>> GroveNet at rdrop.com
>> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet



From allnutt at verizon.net  Wed Jan 27 10:42:45 2010
From: allnutt at verizon.net (Katie Allnutt)
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 10:42:45 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] Tax Measures
In-Reply-To: <1830FEF7-8893-42A0-925A-45C4AB6FC318@teleport.com>
References: <34f3a.6a76c99.3891dae9@aol.com>
	<1830FEF7-8893-42A0-925A-45C4AB6FC318@teleport.com>
Message-ID: <A465DA01-D09C-46F1-9198-80E14217BBD4@verizon.net>


I was wondering how much influence the Oregonian article on income  
inequality on the front page of Monday's paper had on the outcome of  
Tuesday's voters since a huge number of people voted at the last minute.

If you missed it, there was a graph that showed middle class incomes  
remaining flat in the last 20 years, while the top 5% grew like a  
rocket in the same time period. (With a tiny dip for last 2 years.)   
And this graph was only wages/earned income. If they  had added in  
interest/dividend $ the disparity would have been more astounding.

Warren Buffet even said that there really has been class warfare  
going on and his class is winning.  The numbers bear him out.


Katie








From waltw at teleport.com  Wed Jan 27 10:52:04 2010
From: waltw at teleport.com (Walt Wentz)
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 10:52:04 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] Health care rescue rally rescheduled
In-Reply-To: <1643537002.16301861264617175566.JavaMail.root@sz0024a.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net>
References: <1643537002.16301861264617175566.JavaMail.root@sz0024a.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net>
Message-ID: <DDCC848F-7E7A-4661-B61C-11A408725B7A@teleport.com>

True, fraud in the health system must be cleaned up... but I don't  
think "scrapping the whole system" was ever in consideration, so  
rebuilding it from the ground up isn't in question. "Reform" is the  
operative word.  And fraud in the health system, although it costs  
millions and is a drain that must  be plugged, probably doesn't  
really siphon off much in comparison to the really incredible profits  
that the Insurance and Pharmaceutical interests rake in by keeping  
the status quo in place.
On Jan 27, 2010, at 10:32 AM, donkelly wrote:

> You just identified my point Walt.
>
> There is strength in numbers.
>
> Personally, I think spending money to clear up fraud in the health  
> system we have costs far less than scrapping the whole thing and  
> starting over.
>
> Take one thing, in the total expenses, a small thing. Think in  
> terms of the papers and books and manuals and the training programs  
> that would have to be scrapped, then replaced. That pile could  
> equal the bulk of the empire state building.
>
> Then, small step too, every health worker would have to retrained,  
> at huge costs to the tax payer.
>
> So all along I have favored fixing what we have, and putting the  
> frauders who caused our system to be so expensive, put them in jail.
>
> That is tax money I am willing to pay.
>
> respectfully,
>
> donkelly
>
> don
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Walt Wentz <waltw at teleport.com>
> To: Forest Grove local interests list <grovenet at rdrop.com>
> Sent: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 18:03:04 +0000 (UTC)
> Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Health care rescue rally rescheduled
>
> That was Archimedes, the grandfather of modern mechanics.
> But whether one person can "move the world" anymore is highly
> dubious. A lot of people, working together, can accomplish something,
> though they may have to try many times.
> Walt
>
> On Jan 27, 2010, at 9:12 AM, donkelly wrote:
>
>> Who in history said, "give me a place to stand, and a long lever,
>> and I can move the world".
>>
>> Good health to all
>>
>> donkelly
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: Allen Warren <osubuckeye59 at yahoo.com>
>> To: Forest Grove local interests list <grovenet at rdrop.com>
>> Sent: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 16:30:25 +0000 (UTC)
>> Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Health care rescue rally rescheduled
>>
>> Good or bad, the tea leaves are showing healthcare reform is itself
>> on life support.  With Brown getting elected in MA, Congressional
>> Democrats are now not as focused on the healthcare bill as
>> previous.  Pelosi and other Dem leaders are saying they're still
>> committed, but there's much uneasiness even in the Dem ranks.  As
>> Rep. Shelley Berkley, D-Nev. put it, "If someone's losing their
>> house, lost their job, the last thing they
>> care about is their next door neighbor's health care.  Health care
>> isn't the No. 1 issue on their minds. If it's not the No. 1 issue
>> on my
>> constituents' minds, it's not the No. 1 issue on my mind."
>>
>> I don't see Obama necessarily giving up on healthcare reform, and I
>> have no doubt he'll say something about it in his speech tonight,
>> but I do see many of his party now very uneasy about continuing to
>> focus on national healthcare as the #1 issue, regardless of how
>> many rallies are held.
>>
>>
>> Allen Warren
>>
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: Gary Duncan-Gates <gduncangates at yahoo.com>
>> To: Forest Grove local interests list <grovenet at rdrop.com>
>> Sent: Wed, January 27, 2010 8:12:53 AM
>> Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Health care rescue rally rescheduled
>>
>> Mr. Wentz does not want to pay for his own healthcare.  He wants
>> you, and more likely, your children and grandchildren to pay for
>> his healthcare.
>>
>> If you don't want to pay for your own healthcare, and would rather
>> have your friends and neighbors, under threat of imprisonment, pay
>> it for you, by all means, attend this gathering.
>>
>> If you believe in individualism and self-sufficiency, well,
>> apparently this is not the state for you.
>>
>> Gary
>>
>> _______________________________
>> From: Walt Wentz <waltw at teleport.com>
>> To: Forest Grove local interests list <grovenet at rdrop.com>
>> Sent: Tue, January 26, 2010 11:13:24 PM
>> Subject: [Grovenet] Health care rescue rally rescheduled
>>
>> Hello, All:
>> MoveOn.org decided to shift all Oregon events to Thursday, to avoid
>> conflicts with the special election. Accordingly, the Forest Grove
>> health care rescue rally will be held in conjunction with the regular
>> weekly peace rally, which takes place at 4:30-5:30 p.m., Thursday, in
>> front of the library.
>> A link to the MoveOn event:
>> http://pol.moveon.org/event/events/event.html?event_id=100670
>> Hope to see you there!
>> Walt Wentz
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> GroveNet mailing list
>> GroveNet at rdrop.com
>> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> GroveNet mailing list
>> GroveNet at rdrop.com
>> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> GroveNet mailing list
>> GroveNet at rdrop.com
>> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> GroveNet mailing list
>> GroveNet at rdrop.com
>> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet



From waltw at teleport.com  Wed Jan 27 10:57:07 2010
From: waltw at teleport.com (Walt Wentz)
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 10:57:07 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] Health care rescue rally rescheduled
In-Reply-To: <2105412202.16303471264617393202.JavaMail.root@sz0024a.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net>
References: <2105412202.16303471264617393202.JavaMail.root@sz0024a.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net>
Message-ID: <1A7EE907-E4E2-4601-8F7B-94E3E86B0C33@teleport.com>

What? Lies? Untruths in government?

"I am shocked-- shocked! To find that gambling going on in here!"

I think Obama's real "offense" is the elephant in the room that  
nobody mentions.

On Jan 27, 2010, at 10:36 AM, donkelly wrote:

> Yes, but a president who continually lies divides me too, and I am  
> a registered democrat........for awhile at least.
>
> Even my patience is growing thin.
>
> Obam just screams, "attack me" so outspoken people accomodate him.
>
> donkelly
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Allen Warren <osubuckeye59 at yahoo.com>
> To: Forest Grove local interests list <grovenet at rdrop.com>
> Sent: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 18:28:04 +0000 (UTC)
> Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Health care rescue rally rescheduled
>
> If our elected officials can't seem to or flat out WON'T agree to  
> work together, with the likes of Bill O'Reilly and Glenn Beck and  
> Keith Obermann ranting and screaming, is it any wonder "we the  
> people" are divisive?
>
>
> Allen Warren
>
> From: Walt Wentz <waltw at teleport.com>
>
> To: Forest Grove local interests list <grovenet at rdrop.com>
> Sent: Wed, January 27, 2010 10:20:22 AM
> Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Health care rescue rally rescheduled
>
> Hooboy! Reading this, does anyone really wonder why we're sliding
> backwards into the 1890s?
> Walt
>
> On Jan 27, 2010, at 10:07 AM, Jamsm at aol.com wrote:
>
>>
>> Yes - Health care system is broken !
>>
>> But is the liberal solution the answer?  Absolutely NOT!
>>
>> Will the elected officials actually come up with a solution that
>> is fair
>> to all?
>> Don't hold your breath as you can't make everyone happy with issues
>> this
>> complex.
>>
>> Am glad the Marxists are 'quitting' their position  and/or dumping
>> their
>> support of the socialist health care plan.  Death  to the 'Move-On'
>> Marxist
>> organization!  Tea-Party Time!
>>
>> The Grouch
>>
>>
>> In a message dated 1/27/2010 12:45:11 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
>> waltw at teleport.com writes:
>>
>> Hey,  Gary, I'm on Medicare! So are "you" paying for it? Yep. But
>> then, so  am "I."
>> So what do you propose? That the working poor, and those who  can't
>> afford criminally high-cost insurance, should just die in a  ditch
>> somewhere... hopefully tastefully out of the sight of "you and  your
>> children and your grandchildren?"
>> Walt (Or Mr. Wentz, if you  insist)
>> On Jan 27, 2010, at 8:12 AM, Gary Duncan-Gates wrote:
>>
>>>  Mr. Wentz does not want to pay for his own healthcare.  He wants
>>> you, and more likely, your children and grandchildren to pay  for
>>> his healthcare.
>>>
>>> If you don't want to pay  for your own healthcare, and would rather
>>> have your friends and  neighbors, under threat of imprisonment, pay
>>> it for you, by all  means, attend this gathering.
>>>
>>> If you believe in individualism  and self-sufficiency, well,
>>> apparently this is not the state  for you.
>>>
>>> Gary
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>  ________________________________
>>> From: Walt Wentz  <waltw at teleport.com>
>>> To: Forest Grove local interests list  <grovenet at rdrop.com>
>>> Sent: Tue, January 26, 2010 11:13:24  PM
>>> Subject: [Grovenet] Health care rescue rally  rescheduled
>>>
>>> Hello, All:
>>> MoveOn.org decided to shift  all Oregon events to Thursday, to avoid
>>> conflicts with the special  election. Accordingly, the Forest Grove
>>> health care rescue rally will  be held in conjunction with the
>>> regular
>>> weekly peace rally, which  takes place at 4:30-5:30 p.m.,
>>> Thursday, in
>>> front of the  library.
>>> A link to the MoveOn event:
>>>  http://pol.moveon.org/event/events/event.html?event_id=100670
>>> Hope to  see you there!
>>> Walt Wentz
>>>
>>>  _______________________________________________
>>> GroveNet mailing  list
>>> GroveNet at rdrop.com
>>>  http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>  _______________________________________________
>>> GroveNet mailing  list
>>> GroveNet at rdrop.com
>>>  http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> GroveNet  mailing  list
>> GroveNet at rdrop.com
>> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> GroveNet mailing list
>> GroveNet at rdrop.com
>> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet



From waltw at teleport.com  Wed Jan 27 10:58:20 2010
From: waltw at teleport.com (Walt Wentz)
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 10:58:20 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] Tax Measures
In-Reply-To: <A465DA01-D09C-46F1-9198-80E14217BBD4@verizon.net>
References: <34f3a.6a76c99.3891dae9@aol.com>
	<1830FEF7-8893-42A0-925A-45C4AB6FC318@teleport.com>
	<A465DA01-D09C-46F1-9198-80E14217BBD4@verizon.net>
Message-ID: <294F1BBE-B192-4416-92B4-DD69152ABFC4@teleport.com>

Haven't you heard, Kate?
The Class War is over. We lost.

On Jan 27, 2010, at 10:42 AM, Katie Allnutt wrote:

>
> I was wondering how much influence the Oregonian article on income
> inequality on the front page of Monday's paper had on the outcome of
> Tuesday's voters since a huge number of people voted at the last  
> minute.
>
> If you missed it, there was a graph that showed middle class incomes
> remaining flat in the last 20 years, while the top 5% grew like a
> rocket in the same time period. (With a tiny dip for last 2 years.)
> And this graph was only wages/earned income. If they  had added in
> interest/dividend $ the disparity would have been more astounding.
>
> Warren Buffet even said that there really has been class warfare
> going on and his class is winning.  The numbers bear him out.
>
>
> Katie
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet



From edavie at verizon.net  Wed Jan 27 11:05:29 2010
From: edavie at verizon.net (Ed Davie)
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 11:05:29 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] Health care rescue rally rescheduled
References: <34f3a.6a76c99.3891dae9@aol.com>
Message-ID: <47BC19070C3B4FFC84B27014439158B7@700x>

Must be great to be so isolated from reality!
Ed

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

----- Original Message ----- 
From: <Jamsm at aol.com>
To: <grovenet at rdrop.com>
Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2010 10:07 AM
Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Health care rescue rally rescheduled


> 
> Yes - Health care system is broken ! 
> 
> But is the liberal solution the answer?  Absolutely NOT!
> 
> Will the elected officials actually come up with a solution that  is fair 
> to all?
> Don't hold your breath as you can't make everyone happy with issues this  
> complex.
> 
> Am glad the Marxists are 'quitting' their position  and/or dumping their 
> support of the socialist health care plan.  Death  to the 'Move-On' Marxist 
> organization!  Tea-Party Time! 
> 
> The Grouch
> 
> 
> In a message dated 1/27/2010 12:45:11 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,  
> waltw at teleport.com writes:
> 
> Hey,  Gary, I'm on Medicare! So are "you" paying for it? Yep. But  
> then, so  am "I."
> So what do you propose? That the working poor, and those who  can't  
> afford criminally high-cost insurance, should just die in a  ditch  
> somewhere... hopefully tastefully out of the sight of "you and  your  
> children and your grandchildren?"
> Walt (Or Mr. Wentz, if you  insist)
> On Jan 27, 2010, at 8:12 AM, Gary Duncan-Gates wrote:
> 
>>  Mr. Wentz does not want to pay for his own healthcare.  He wants   
>> you, and more likely, your children and grandchildren to pay  for  
>> his healthcare.
>>
>> If you don't want to pay  for your own healthcare, and would rather  
>> have your friends and  neighbors, under threat of imprisonment, pay  
>> it for you, by all  means, attend this gathering.
>>
>> If you believe in individualism  and self-sufficiency, well,  
>> apparently this is not the state  for you.
>>
>> Gary
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>  ________________________________
>> From: Walt Wentz  <waltw at teleport.com>
>> To: Forest Grove local interests list  <grovenet at rdrop.com>
>> Sent: Tue, January 26, 2010 11:13:24  PM
>> Subject: [Grovenet] Health care rescue rally  rescheduled
>>
>> Hello, All:
>> MoveOn.org decided to shift  all Oregon events to Thursday, to avoid
>> conflicts with the special  election. Accordingly, the Forest Grove
>> health care rescue rally will  be held in conjunction with the regular
>> weekly peace rally, which  takes place at 4:30-5:30 p.m., Thursday, in
>> front of the  library.
>> A link to the MoveOn event:
>>  http://pol.moveon.org/event/events/event.html?event_id=100670
>> Hope to  see you there!
>> Walt Wentz
>>
>>  _______________________________________________
>> GroveNet mailing  list
>> GroveNet at rdrop.com
>>  http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>  _______________________________________________
>> GroveNet mailing  list
>> GroveNet at rdrop.com
>>  http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet  mailing  list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
> 
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>

From rab at jurislex.com  Wed Jan 27 11:06:10 2010
From: rab at jurislex.com (Bob Browning)
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 11:06:10 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] Health care rescue rally rescheduled
In-Reply-To: <712592.17548.qm@web112108.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
References: <34f3a.6a76c99.3891dae9@aol.com>	<1830FEF7-8893-42A0-925A-45C4AB6FC318@teleport.com>
	<712592.17548.qm@web112108.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <4B608EA2.4030609@jurislex.com>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/attachments/20100127/ee4d6343/attachment.html 

From ocollaugh at comcast.net  Wed Jan 27 11:07:27 2010
From: ocollaugh at comcast.net (donkelly)
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 19:07:27 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: [Grovenet] Health care rescue rally rescheduled
In-Reply-To: <1A7EE907-E4E2-4601-8F7B-94E3E86B0C33@teleport.com>
Message-ID: <1258974415.16321151264619247475.JavaMail.root@sz0024a.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net>

Or the flies on the wall that see all, hear all, but tell lies.

don

----- Original Message -----
From: Walt Wentz <waltw at teleport.com>
To: Forest Grove local interests list <grovenet at rdrop.com>
Sent: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 18:57:07 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Health care rescue rally rescheduled

What? Lies? Untruths in government?

"I am shocked-- shocked! To find that gambling going on in here!"

I think Obama's real "offense" is the elephant in the room that  
nobody mentions.

On Jan 27, 2010, at 10:36 AM, donkelly wrote:

> Yes, but a president who continually lies divides me too, and I am  
> a registered democrat........for awhile at least.
>
> Even my patience is growing thin.
>
> Obam just screams, "attack me" so outspoken people accomodate him.
>
> donkelly
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Allen Warren <osubuckeye59 at yahoo.com>
> To: Forest Grove local interests list <grovenet at rdrop.com>
> Sent: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 18:28:04 +0000 (UTC)
> Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Health care rescue rally rescheduled
>
> If our elected officials can't seem to or flat out WON'T agree to  
> work together, with the likes of Bill O'Reilly and Glenn Beck and  
> Keith Obermann ranting and screaming, is it any wonder "we the  
> people" are divisive?
>
>
> Allen Warren
>
> From: Walt Wentz <waltw at teleport.com>
>
> To: Forest Grove local interests list <grovenet at rdrop.com>
> Sent: Wed, January 27, 2010 10:20:22 AM
> Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Health care rescue rally rescheduled
>
> Hooboy! Reading this, does anyone really wonder why we're sliding
> backwards into the 1890s?
> Walt
>
> On Jan 27, 2010, at 10:07 AM, Jamsm at aol.com wrote:
>
>>
>> Yes - Health care system is broken !
>>
>> But is the liberal solution the answer?  Absolutely NOT!
>>
>> Will the elected officials actually come up with a solution that
>> is fair
>> to all?
>> Don't hold your breath as you can't make everyone happy with issues
>> this
>> complex.
>>
>> Am glad the Marxists are 'quitting' their position  and/or dumping
>> their
>> support of the socialist health care plan.  Death  to the 'Move-On'
>> Marxist
>> organization!  Tea-Party Time!
>>
>> The Grouch
>>
>>
>> In a message dated 1/27/2010 12:45:11 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
>> waltw at teleport.com writes:
>>
>> Hey,  Gary, I'm on Medicare! So are "you" paying for it? Yep. But
>> then, so  am "I."
>> So what do you propose? That the working poor, and those who  can't
>> afford criminally high-cost insurance, should just die in a  ditch
>> somewhere... hopefully tastefully out of the sight of "you and  your
>> children and your grandchildren?"
>> Walt (Or Mr. Wentz, if you  insist)
>> On Jan 27, 2010, at 8:12 AM, Gary Duncan-Gates wrote:
>>
>>>  Mr. Wentz does not want to pay for his own healthcare.  He wants
>>> you, and more likely, your children and grandchildren to pay  for
>>> his healthcare.
>>>
>>> If you don't want to pay  for your own healthcare, and would rather
>>> have your friends and  neighbors, under threat of imprisonment, pay
>>> it for you, by all  means, attend this gathering.
>>>
>>> If you believe in individualism  and self-sufficiency, well,
>>> apparently this is not the state  for you.
>>>
>>> Gary
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>  ________________________________
>>> From: Walt Wentz  <waltw at teleport.com>
>>> To: Forest Grove local interests list  <grovenet at rdrop.com>
>>> Sent: Tue, January 26, 2010 11:13:24  PM
>>> Subject: [Grovenet] Health care rescue rally  rescheduled
>>>
>>> Hello, All:
>>> MoveOn.org decided to shift  all Oregon events to Thursday, to avoid
>>> conflicts with the special  election. Accordingly, the Forest Grove
>>> health care rescue rally will  be held in conjunction with the
>>> regular
>>> weekly peace rally, which  takes place at 4:30-5:30 p.m.,
>>> Thursday, in
>>> front of the  library.
>>> A link to the MoveOn event:
>>>  http://pol.moveon.org/event/events/event.html?event_id=100670
>>> Hope to  see you there!
>>> Walt Wentz
>>>
>>>  _______________________________________________
>>> GroveNet mailing  list
>>> GroveNet at rdrop.com
>>>  http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>  _______________________________________________
>>> GroveNet mailing  list
>>> GroveNet at rdrop.com
>>>  http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> GroveNet  mailing  list
>> GroveNet at rdrop.com
>> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> GroveNet mailing list
>> GroveNet at rdrop.com
>> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet


_______________________________________________
GroveNet mailing list
GroveNet at rdrop.com
http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet



From osubuckeye59 at yahoo.com  Wed Jan 27 11:08:17 2010
From: osubuckeye59 at yahoo.com (Allen Warren)
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 11:08:17 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [Grovenet] Health care rescue rally rescheduled
In-Reply-To: <4B608EA2.4030609@jurislex.com>
References: <34f3a.6a76c99.3891dae9@aol.com>
	<1830FEF7-8893-42A0-925A-45C4AB6FC318@teleport.com>
	<712592.17548.qm@web112108.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<4B608EA2.4030609@jurislex.com>
Message-ID: <984475.67882.qm@web112106.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>

Okay, Bob, maybe not "screaming" like Bill and Glenn do, but you get my point, yes?

 
Allen Warren

From: Bob Browning <rab at jurislex.com>

To: Forest Grove local interests list <grovenet at rdrop.com>
Sent: Wed, January 27, 2010 11:06:10 AM
Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Health care rescue rally rescheduled

What, Keith Obermann ranting and screaming??  Are you
watching the same Keith Obermann I do??  Ranting yes, but I don't
recall ever hearing him "scream" in the same sense as Bill and Glenn!!

bob "safe and sane" browning

On 1/27/2010 10:28 AM, Allen Warren wrote: 
If our elected officials can't seem to or flat out WON'T agree to work together, with the likes of Bill O'Reilly and Glenn Beck and Keith Obermann ranting and screaming, is it any wonder "we the people" are divisive?
>
>
>Allen Warren



      

From steelem at pacificu.edu  Wed Jan 27 11:08:55 2010
From: steelem at pacificu.edu (Steele, Mike)
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 11:08:55 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] Health care rescue rally rescheduled
In-Reply-To: <4B608EA2.4030609@jurislex.com>
References: <34f3a.6a76c99.3891dae9@aol.com>
	<1830FEF7-8893-42A0-925A-45C4AB6FC318@teleport.com>
	<712592.17548.qm@web112108.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<4B608EA2.4030609@jurislex.com>
Message-ID: <8D94A946E17E9941AE94FC3AE11CAB7E03D43DCE76@everest.ad.pacificu.edu>

Bob, not to change the subject, but I'd like to know your opinion of the recent Supreme Court decision re corporations.  I see that a corporation (Murrayhill Inc.), taking all this to heart, is now running for a congressional seat in Maryland.

--Mike

________________________________
From: grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com [mailto:grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com] On Behalf Of Bob Browning
Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2010 11:06 AM
To: Forest Grove local interests list
Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Health care rescue rally rescheduled

What, Keith Obermann ranting and screaming??  Are you watching the same Keith Obermann I do??  Ranting yes, but I don't recall ever hearing him "scream" in the same sense as Bill and Glenn!!

bob "safe and sane" browning

On 1/27/2010 10:28 AM, Allen Warren wrote:

If our elected officials can't seem to or flat out WON'T agree to work together, with the likes of Bill O'Reilly and Glenn Beck and Keith Obermann ranting and screaming, is it any wonder "we the people" are divisive?





Allen Warren


From osubuckeye59 at yahoo.com  Wed Jan 27 11:13:13 2010
From: osubuckeye59 at yahoo.com (Allen Warren)
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 11:13:13 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [Grovenet] Health care rescue rally rescheduled
In-Reply-To: <1258974415.16321151264619247475.JavaMail.root@sz0024a.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net>
References: <1258974415.16321151264619247475.JavaMail.root@sz0024a.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net>
Message-ID: <803754.93599.qm@web112101.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>

I've oft heard the statement "The people that SHOULD run for government are smart enough to realize why they don't."

As for me, if I were ever elected POTUS (perish the thought!), I doubt I'd make it even 1 day before losing whatever sense of sanity I thought I had.

 
Allen Warren



________________________________
From: donkelly <ocollaugh at comcast.net>
To: Forest Grove local interests list <grovenet at rdrop.com>
Sent: Wed, January 27, 2010 11:07:27 AM
Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Health care rescue rally rescheduled

Or the flies on the wall that see all, hear all, but tell lies.

don

----- Original Message -----
From: Walt Wentz <waltw at teleport.com>
To: Forest Grove local interests list <grovenet at rdrop.com>
Sent: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 18:57:07 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Health care rescue rally rescheduled

What? Lies? Untruths in government?

"I am shocked-- shocked! To find that gambling going on in here!"

I think Obama's real "offense" is the elephant in the room that  
nobody mentions.

On Jan 27, 2010, at 10:36 AM, donkelly wrote:

> Yes, but a president who continually lies divides me too, and I am  
> a registered democrat........for awhile at least.
>
> Even my patience is growing thin.
>
> Obam just screams, "attack me" so outspoken people accomodate him.
>
> donkelly
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Allen Warren <osubuckeye59 at yahoo.com>
> To: Forest Grove local interests list <grovenet at rdrop.com>
> Sent: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 18:28:04 +0000 (UTC)
> Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Health care rescue rally rescheduled
>
> If our elected officials can't seem to or flat out WON'T agree to  
> work together, with the likes of Bill O'Reilly and Glenn Beck and  
> Keith Obermann ranting and screaming, is it any wonder "we the  
> people" are divisive?
>
>
> Allen Warren
>
> From: Walt Wentz <waltw at teleport.com>
>
> To: Forest Grove local interests list <grovenet at rdrop.com>
> Sent: Wed, January 27, 2010 10:20:22 AM
> Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Health care rescue rally rescheduled
>
> Hooboy! Reading this, does anyone really wonder why we're sliding
> backwards into the 1890s?
> Walt
>
> On Jan 27, 2010, at 10:07 AM, Jamsm at aol.com wrote:
>
>>
>> Yes - Health care system is broken !
>>
>> But is the liberal solution the answer?  Absolutely NOT!
>>
>> Will the elected officials actually come up with a solution that
>> is fair
>> to all?
>> Don't hold your breath as you can't make everyone happy with issues
>> this
>> complex.
>>
>> Am glad the Marxists are 'quitting' their position  and/or dumping
>> their
>> support of the socialist health care plan.  Death  to the 'Move-On'
>> Marxist
>> organization!  Tea-Party Time!
>>
>> The Grouch
>>
>>
>> In a message dated 1/27/2010 12:45:11 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
>> waltw at teleport.com writes:
>>
>> Hey,  Gary, I'm on Medicare! So are "you" paying for it? Yep. But
>> then, so  am "I."
>> So what do you propose? That the working poor, and those who  can't
>> afford criminally high-cost insurance, should just die in a  ditch
>> somewhere... hopefully tastefully out of the sight of "you and  your
>> children and your grandchildren?"
>> Walt (Or Mr. Wentz, if you  insist)
>> On Jan 27, 2010, at 8:12 AM, Gary Duncan-Gates wrote:
>>
>>>  Mr. Wentz does not want to pay for his own healthcare.  He wants
>>> you, and more likely, your children and grandchildren to pay  for
>>> his healthcare.
>>>
>>> If you don't want to pay  for your own healthcare, and would rather
>>> have your friends and  neighbors, under threat of imprisonment, pay
>>> it for you, by all  means, attend this gathering.
>>>
>>> If you believe in individualism  and self-sufficiency, well,
>>> apparently this is not the state  for you.
>>>
>>> Gary
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>  ________________________________
>>> From: Walt Wentz  <waltw at teleport.com>
>>> To: Forest Grove local interests list  <grovenet at rdrop.com>
>>> Sent: Tue, January 26, 2010 11:13:24  PM
>>> Subject: [Grovenet] Health care rescue rally  rescheduled
>>>
>>> Hello, All:
>>> MoveOn.org decided to shift  all Oregon events to Thursday, to avoid
>>> conflicts with the special  election. Accordingly, the Forest Grove
>>> health care rescue rally will  be held in conjunction with the
>>> regular
>>> weekly peace rally, which  takes place at 4:30-5:30 p.m.,
>>> Thursday, in
>>> front of the  library.
>>> A link to the MoveOn event:
>>>  http://pol.moveon.org/event/events/event.html?event_id=100670
>>> Hope to  see you there!
>>> Walt Wentz
>>>
>>>  _______________________________________________
>>> GroveNet mailing  list
>>> GroveNet at rdrop.com
>>>  http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>  _______________________________________________
>>> GroveNet mailing  list
>>> GroveNet at rdrop.com
>>>  http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> GroveNet  mailing  list
>> GroveNet at rdrop.com
>> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> GroveNet mailing list
>> GroveNet at rdrop.com
>> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet


_______________________________________________
GroveNet mailing list
GroveNet at rdrop.com
http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet


_______________________________________________
GroveNet mailing list
GroveNet at rdrop.com
http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet



      

From allnutt at verizon.net  Wed Jan 27 11:24:24 2010
From: allnutt at verizon.net (Katie Allnutt)
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 11:24:24 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] Health care rescue rally rescheduled
In-Reply-To: <34f3a.6a76c99.3891dae9@aol.com>
References: <34f3a.6a76c99.3891dae9@aol.com>
Message-ID: <CBEDB051-3A2B-4DDA-8460-87F218FD8FF7@verizon.net>

My guess is that we are closer to agreement on most issues than the  
pundits would like us to believe.

Do we all agree the system is broken?  check

Do we all agree the solution will be complex? check

Do we all agree that both the government and the for profit insurance  
industry conglomerates are powerful and can do things that are  
incredibly hard for us as individuals to change? check.

Would we all like to be able to join a very large risk pool to spread  
the risk? Probably - at least I do

Do we all want the doctor to treat us based on what is wrong with us,  
not based on who pays for his trip to Hawaii? check

And we probably agree with 95% of the solutions but someone is  
screaming the labels we don't want to hear.
Would you like your doctor to be able to talk to you about advanced  
directives or would that conversation be the first death panel?

We are closer to agreement than the talking heads want to admit.

Katie





On Jan 27, 2010, at 10:07 AM, Jamsm at aol.com wrote:

>
> Yes - Health care system is broken !
>
> But is the liberal solution the answer?  Absolutely NOT!
>
> Will the elected officials actually come up with a solution that   
> is fair
> to all?
> Don't hold your breath as you can't make everyone happy with issues  
> this
> complex.
>
> Am glad the Marxists are 'quitting' their position  and/or dumping  
> their
> support of the socialist health care plan.  Death  to the 'Move-On'  
> Marxist
> organization!  Tea-Party Time!
>
> The Grouch
>
>
> In a message dated 1/27/2010 12:45:11 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
> waltw at teleport.com writes:
>
> Hey,  Gary, I'm on Medicare! So are "you" paying for it? Yep. But
> then, so  am "I."
> So what do you propose? That the working poor, and those who  can't
> afford criminally high-cost insurance, should just die in a  ditch
> somewhere... hopefully tastefully out of the sight of "you and  your
> children and your grandchildren?"
> Walt (Or Mr. Wentz, if you  insist)
> On Jan 27, 2010, at 8:12 AM, Gary Duncan-Gates wrote:
>
>>  Mr. Wentz does not want to pay for his own healthcare.  He wants
>> you, and more likely, your children and grandchildren to pay  for
>> his healthcare.
>>
>> If you don't want to pay  for your own healthcare, and would rather
>> have your friends and  neighbors, under threat of imprisonment, pay
>> it for you, by all  means, attend this gathering.
>>
>> If you believe in individualism  and self-sufficiency, well,
>> apparently this is not the state  for you.
>>
>> Gary
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>  ________________________________
>> From: Walt Wentz  <waltw at teleport.com>
>> To: Forest Grove local interests list  <grovenet at rdrop.com>
>> Sent: Tue, January 26, 2010 11:13:24  PM
>> Subject: [Grovenet] Health care rescue rally  rescheduled
>>
>> Hello, All:
>> MoveOn.org decided to shift  all Oregon events to Thursday, to avoid
>> conflicts with the special  election. Accordingly, the Forest Grove
>> health care rescue rally will  be held in conjunction with the  
>> regular
>> weekly peace rally, which  takes place at 4:30-5:30 p.m.,  
>> Thursday, in
>> front of the  library.
>> A link to the MoveOn event:
>>  http://pol.moveon.org/event/events/event.html?event_id=100670
>> Hope to  see you there!
>> Walt Wentz
>>
>>  _______________________________________________
>> GroveNet mailing  list
>> GroveNet at rdrop.com
>>  http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>  _______________________________________________
>> GroveNet mailing  list
>> GroveNet at rdrop.com
>>  http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet  mailing  list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet



From ocollaugh at comcast.net  Wed Jan 27 11:25:11 2010
From: ocollaugh at comcast.net (donkelly)
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 19:25:11 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: [Grovenet] Health care rescue rally rescheduled
In-Reply-To: <803754.93599.qm@web112101.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <1517612311.16331911264620311957.JavaMail.root@sz0024a.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net>

TO BE POTUS, one should expect their hair to start turning gray overnight.

Good people in some cases would lose a lot of money if they ran for office.

They have a lot of money, but do they lack public spirit, the desire to help people. If they have the former, but not the latter, are they 100% good?

In the beginning it was farmers, store keepers. explorers and hunters who ran for office. Same true for colonial (state) congresses.

We have come a long way to where one must be rich, or have rich friends, to run for office and win.

donkelly
----- Original Message -----
From: Allen Warren <osubuckeye59 at yahoo.com>
To: Forest Grove local interests list <grovenet at rdrop.com>
Sent: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 19:13:13 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Health care rescue rally rescheduled

I've oft heard the statement "The people that SHOULD run for government are smart enough to realize why they don't."

As for me, if I were ever elected POTUS (perish the thought!), I doubt I'd make it even 1 day before losing whatever sense of sanity I thought I had.

 
Allen Warren



________________________________
From: donkelly <ocollaugh at comcast.net>
To: Forest Grove local interests list <grovenet at rdrop.com>
Sent: Wed, January 27, 2010 11:07:27 AM
Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Health care rescue rally rescheduled

Or the flies on the wall that see all, hear all, but tell lies.

don

----- Original Message -----
From: Walt Wentz <waltw at teleport.com>
To: Forest Grove local interests list <grovenet at rdrop.com>
Sent: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 18:57:07 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Health care rescue rally rescheduled

What? Lies? Untruths in government?

"I am shocked-- shocked! To find that gambling going on in here!"

I think Obama's real "offense" is the elephant in the room that  
nobody mentions.

On Jan 27, 2010, at 10:36 AM, donkelly wrote:

> Yes, but a president who continually lies divides me too, and I am  
> a registered democrat........for awhile at least.
>
> Even my patience is growing thin.
>
> Obam just screams, "attack me" so outspoken people accomodate him.
>
> donkelly
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Allen Warren <osubuckeye59 at yahoo.com>
> To: Forest Grove local interests list <grovenet at rdrop.com>
> Sent: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 18:28:04 +0000 (UTC)
> Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Health care rescue rally rescheduled
>
> If our elected officials can't seem to or flat out WON'T agree to  
> work together, with the likes of Bill O'Reilly and Glenn Beck and  
> Keith Obermann ranting and screaming, is it any wonder "we the  
> people" are divisive?
>
>
> Allen Warren
>
> From: Walt Wentz <waltw at teleport.com>
>
> To: Forest Grove local interests list <grovenet at rdrop.com>
> Sent: Wed, January 27, 2010 10:20:22 AM
> Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Health care rescue rally rescheduled
>
> Hooboy! Reading this, does anyone really wonder why we're sliding
> backwards into the 1890s?
> Walt
>
> On Jan 27, 2010, at 10:07 AM, Jamsm at aol.com wrote:
>
>>
>> Yes - Health care system is broken !
>>
>> But is the liberal solution the answer?  Absolutely NOT!
>>
>> Will the elected officials actually come up with a solution that
>> is fair
>> to all?
>> Don't hold your breath as you can't make everyone happy with issues
>> this
>> complex.
>>
>> Am glad the Marxists are 'quitting' their position  and/or dumping
>> their
>> support of the socialist health care plan.  Death  to the 'Move-On'
>> Marxist
>> organization!  Tea-Party Time!
>>
>> The Grouch
>>
>>
>> In a message dated 1/27/2010 12:45:11 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
>> waltw at teleport.com writes:
>>
>> Hey,  Gary, I'm on Medicare! So are "you" paying for it? Yep. But
>> then, so  am "I."
>> So what do you propose? That the working poor, and those who  can't
>> afford criminally high-cost insurance, should just die in a  ditch
>> somewhere... hopefully tastefully out of the sight of "you and  your
>> children and your grandchildren?"
>> Walt (Or Mr. Wentz, if you  insist)
>> On Jan 27, 2010, at 8:12 AM, Gary Duncan-Gates wrote:
>>
>>>  Mr. Wentz does not want to pay for his own healthcare.  He wants
>>> you, and more likely, your children and grandchildren to pay  for
>>> his healthcare.
>>>
>>> If you don't want to pay  for your own healthcare, and would rather
>>> have your friends and  neighbors, under threat of imprisonment, pay
>>> it for you, by all  means, attend this gathering.
>>>
>>> If you believe in individualism  and self-sufficiency, well,
>>> apparently this is not the state  for you.
>>>
>>> Gary
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>  ________________________________
>>> From: Walt Wentz  <waltw at teleport.com>
>>> To: Forest Grove local interests list  <grovenet at rdrop.com>
>>> Sent: Tue, January 26, 2010 11:13:24  PM
>>> Subject: [Grovenet] Health care rescue rally  rescheduled
>>>
>>> Hello, All:
>>> MoveOn.org decided to shift  all Oregon events to Thursday, to avoid
>>> conflicts with the special  election. Accordingly, the Forest Grove
>>> health care rescue rally will  be held in conjunction with the
>>> regular
>>> weekly peace rally, which  takes place at 4:30-5:30 p.m.,
>>> Thursday, in
>>> front of the  library.
>>> A link to the MoveOn event:
>>>  http://pol.moveon.org/event/events/event.html?event_id=100670
>>> Hope to  see you there!
>>> Walt Wentz
>>>
>>>  _______________________________________________
>>> GroveNet mailing  list
>>> GroveNet at rdrop.com
>>>  http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>  _______________________________________________
>>> GroveNet mailing  list
>>> GroveNet at rdrop.com
>>>  http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> GroveNet  mailing  list
>> GroveNet at rdrop.com
>> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> GroveNet mailing list
>> GroveNet at rdrop.com
>> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet


_______________________________________________
GroveNet mailing list
GroveNet at rdrop.com
http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet


_______________________________________________
GroveNet mailing list
GroveNet at rdrop.com
http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet



      
_______________________________________________
GroveNet mailing list
GroveNet at rdrop.com
http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet



From waltw at teleport.com  Wed Jan 27 11:27:36 2010
From: waltw at teleport.com (Walt Wentz)
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 11:27:36 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] Health care rescue rally rescheduled
In-Reply-To: <CBEDB051-3A2B-4DDA-8460-87F218FD8FF7@verizon.net>
References: <34f3a.6a76c99.3891dae9@aol.com>
	<CBEDB051-3A2B-4DDA-8460-87F218FD8FF7@verizon.net>
Message-ID: <7BA96F87-2026-440D-AD83-C32226FA8692@teleport.com>

Bingo, Katie! Spot on!

On Jan 27, 2010, at 11:24 AM, Katie Allnutt wrote:

> My guess is that we are closer to agreement on most issues than the
> pundits would like us to believe.
>
> Do we all agree the system is broken?  check
>
> Do we all agree the solution will be complex? check
>
> Do we all agree that both the government and the for profit insurance
> industry conglomerates are powerful and can do things that are
> incredibly hard for us as individuals to change? check.
>
> Would we all like to be able to join a very large risk pool to spread
> the risk? Probably - at least I do
>
> Do we all want the doctor to treat us based on what is wrong with us,
> not based on who pays for his trip to Hawaii? check
>
> And we probably agree with 95% of the solutions but someone is
> screaming the labels we don't want to hear.
> Would you like your doctor to be able to talk to you about advanced
> directives or would that conversation be the first death panel?
>
> We are closer to agreement than the talking heads want to admit.
>
> Katie
>
>
>
>
>
> On Jan 27, 2010, at 10:07 AM, Jamsm at aol.com wrote:
>
>>
>> Yes - Health care system is broken !
>>
>> But is the liberal solution the answer?  Absolutely NOT!
>>
>> Will the elected officials actually come up with a solution that
>> is fair
>> to all?
>> Don't hold your breath as you can't make everyone happy with issues
>> this
>> complex.
>>
>> Am glad the Marxists are 'quitting' their position  and/or dumping
>> their
>> support of the socialist health care plan.  Death  to the 'Move-On'
>> Marxist
>> organization!  Tea-Party Time!
>>
>> The Grouch
>>
>>
>> In a message dated 1/27/2010 12:45:11 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
>> waltw at teleport.com writes:
>>
>> Hey,  Gary, I'm on Medicare! So are "you" paying for it? Yep. But
>> then, so  am "I."
>> So what do you propose? That the working poor, and those who  can't
>> afford criminally high-cost insurance, should just die in a  ditch
>> somewhere... hopefully tastefully out of the sight of "you and  your
>> children and your grandchildren?"
>> Walt (Or Mr. Wentz, if you  insist)
>> On Jan 27, 2010, at 8:12 AM, Gary Duncan-Gates wrote:
>>
>>>  Mr. Wentz does not want to pay for his own healthcare.  He wants
>>> you, and more likely, your children and grandchildren to pay  for
>>> his healthcare.
>>>
>>> If you don't want to pay  for your own healthcare, and would rather
>>> have your friends and  neighbors, under threat of imprisonment, pay
>>> it for you, by all  means, attend this gathering.
>>>
>>> If you believe in individualism  and self-sufficiency, well,
>>> apparently this is not the state  for you.
>>>
>>> Gary
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>  ________________________________
>>> From: Walt Wentz  <waltw at teleport.com>
>>> To: Forest Grove local interests list  <grovenet at rdrop.com>
>>> Sent: Tue, January 26, 2010 11:13:24  PM
>>> Subject: [Grovenet] Health care rescue rally  rescheduled
>>>
>>> Hello, All:
>>> MoveOn.org decided to shift  all Oregon events to Thursday, to avoid
>>> conflicts with the special  election. Accordingly, the Forest Grove
>>> health care rescue rally will  be held in conjunction with the
>>> regular
>>> weekly peace rally, which  takes place at 4:30-5:30 p.m.,
>>> Thursday, in
>>> front of the  library.
>>> A link to the MoveOn event:
>>>  http://pol.moveon.org/event/events/event.html?event_id=100670
>>> Hope to  see you there!
>>> Walt Wentz
>>>
>>>  _______________________________________________
>>> GroveNet mailing  list
>>> GroveNet at rdrop.com
>>>  http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>  _______________________________________________
>>> GroveNet mailing  list
>>> GroveNet at rdrop.com
>>>  http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> GroveNet  mailing  list
>> GroveNet at rdrop.com
>> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> GroveNet mailing list
>> GroveNet at rdrop.com
>> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet



From ocollaugh at comcast.net  Wed Jan 27 11:42:12 2010
From: ocollaugh at comcast.net (donkelly)
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 19:42:12 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: [Grovenet] Health care rescue rally rescheduled
In-Reply-To: <7BA96F87-2026-440D-AD83-C32226FA8692@teleport.com>
Message-ID: <1975860828.16340351264621332914.JavaMail.root@sz0024a.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net>

Talking heads would no impact at all if the did not resonate on a nerve now and then.

Such as, do you want to go to jail for standing on your constitutional right to buy health coverage from anyone you want, or not buy it from anyone, (self financed?)?

donkelly

----- Original Message -----
From: Walt Wentz <waltw at teleport.com>
To: Forest Grove local interests list <grovenet at rdrop.com>
Sent: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 19:27:36 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Health care rescue rally rescheduled

Bingo, Katie! Spot on!

On Jan 27, 2010, at 11:24 AM, Katie Allnutt wrote:

> My guess is that we are closer to agreement on most issues than the
> pundits would like us to believe.
>
> Do we all agree the system is broken?  check
>
> Do we all agree the solution will be complex? check
>
> Do we all agree that both the government and the for profit insurance
> industry conglomerates are powerful and can do things that are
> incredibly hard for us as individuals to change? check.
>
> Would we all like to be able to join a very large risk pool to spread
> the risk? Probably - at least I do
>
> Do we all want the doctor to treat us based on what is wrong with us,
> not based on who pays for his trip to Hawaii? check
>
> And we probably agree with 95% of the solutions but someone is
> screaming the labels we don't want to hear.
> Would you like your doctor to be able to talk to you about advanced
> directives or would that conversation be the first death panel?
>
> We are closer to agreement than the talking heads want to admit.
>
> Katie
>
>
>
>
>
> On Jan 27, 2010, at 10:07 AM, Jamsm at aol.com wrote:
>
>>
>> Yes - Health care system is broken !
>>
>> But is the liberal solution the answer?  Absolutely NOT!
>>
>> Will the elected officials actually come up with a solution that
>> is fair
>> to all?
>> Don't hold your breath as you can't make everyone happy with issues
>> this
>> complex.
>>
>> Am glad the Marxists are 'quitting' their position  and/or dumping
>> their
>> support of the socialist health care plan.  Death  to the 'Move-On'
>> Marxist
>> organization!  Tea-Party Time!
>>
>> The Grouch
>>
>>
>> In a message dated 1/27/2010 12:45:11 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
>> waltw at teleport.com writes:
>>
>> Hey,  Gary, I'm on Medicare! So are "you" paying for it? Yep. But
>> then, so  am "I."
>> So what do you propose? That the working poor, and those who  can't
>> afford criminally high-cost insurance, should just die in a  ditch
>> somewhere... hopefully tastefully out of the sight of "you and  your
>> children and your grandchildren?"
>> Walt (Or Mr. Wentz, if you  insist)
>> On Jan 27, 2010, at 8:12 AM, Gary Duncan-Gates wrote:
>>
>>>  Mr. Wentz does not want to pay for his own healthcare.  He wants
>>> you, and more likely, your children and grandchildren to pay  for
>>> his healthcare.
>>>
>>> If you don't want to pay  for your own healthcare, and would rather
>>> have your friends and  neighbors, under threat of imprisonment, pay
>>> it for you, by all  means, attend this gathering.
>>>
>>> If you believe in individualism  and self-sufficiency, well,
>>> apparently this is not the state  for you.
>>>
>>> Gary
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>  ________________________________
>>> From: Walt Wentz  <waltw at teleport.com>
>>> To: Forest Grove local interests list  <grovenet at rdrop.com>
>>> Sent: Tue, January 26, 2010 11:13:24  PM
>>> Subject: [Grovenet] Health care rescue rally  rescheduled
>>>
>>> Hello, All:
>>> MoveOn.org decided to shift  all Oregon events to Thursday, to avoid
>>> conflicts with the special  election. Accordingly, the Forest Grove
>>> health care rescue rally will  be held in conjunction with the
>>> regular
>>> weekly peace rally, which  takes place at 4:30-5:30 p.m.,
>>> Thursday, in
>>> front of the  library.
>>> A link to the MoveOn event:
>>>  http://pol.moveon.org/event/events/event.html?event_id=100670
>>> Hope to  see you there!
>>> Walt Wentz
>>>
>>>  _______________________________________________
>>> GroveNet mailing  list
>>> GroveNet at rdrop.com
>>>  http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>  _______________________________________________
>>> GroveNet mailing  list
>>> GroveNet at rdrop.com
>>>  http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> GroveNet  mailing  list
>> GroveNet at rdrop.com
>> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> GroveNet mailing list
>> GroveNet at rdrop.com
>> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet


_______________________________________________
GroveNet mailing list
GroveNet at rdrop.com
http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet



From a_tom_51 at juno.com  Wed Jan 27 11:59:57 2010
From: a_tom_51 at juno.com (a_tom_51 at juno.com)
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 19:59:57 GMT
Subject: [Grovenet] Health care rescue rally rescheduled
Message-ID: <20100127.115957.22919.0@webmail19.vgs.untd.com>

Let's elect Katie and Allen to run the country!
Tom Alexander

 
____________________________________________________________
Nutrition
Improve your career health. Click now to study nutrition!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/c?cp=VU8gCakHihkB4VJEzPymLAAAJ1CORKrrSABr_kse746cCp3FAAYAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADNAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAASQwAAAAA=

From dicklajeunesse at hotmail.com  Wed Jan 27 12:02:57 2010
From: dicklajeunesse at hotmail.com (Dick La Jeunesse)
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 12:02:57 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] Oregon's first sales tax
Message-ID: <COL106-W35576525236E5EE25A6AE4D35D0@phx.gbl>


We interrupt your debate on class warfare and health care entitlements for a brief announcement.

The voters have just approved Oregon's first sales tax!  

No, Measure 67 was not about the $140 increase in minimum tax ($10M), it was about a sales tax on gross revenues ($390M)!


But, don't worry - you won't have to pay the tax (directly, yet) - you just voted to impose the retroactive tax on "wealthy" businesses - whether or not they make a profit and whether or not they are still in business.  

Ask your neighbors who work for those "wealthy" local businesses how they feel about investing in more jobs versus just trying to survive.  We have already lost Times Litho, Deli in the Grove, Forest Grove Cleaners, the UPS Store, etc.  to the recession.  Now what?

Ask your neighbors who survived the layoffs at Woodfold how they feel
about the future of their company now that the State will pile
retroactive taxes on top of their lost revenues for the past year. 

Our friends in Salem are only a short step away from extending that sales tax to the rest of the "wealth" in the State where all of us get to pay it directly.  The camel's nose is in the tent.


Dick "need one of those State jobs that still gives raises during recessions" LaJeunesse


 		 	   		  
_________________________________________________________________
Your E-mail and More On-the-Go. Get Windows Live Hotmail Free.
http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/196390709/direct/01/

From ocollaugh at comcast.net  Wed Jan 27 12:11:25 2010
From: ocollaugh at comcast.net (donkelly)
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 20:11:25 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: [Grovenet] Oregon's first sales tax
In-Reply-To: <COL106-W35576525236E5EE25A6AE4D35D0@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <311375759.16353731264623085153.JavaMail.root@sz0024a.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net>

Is half an interruption as good as a whole interruption?

Where is the balance in this announcement.

Sounds like the same rhetoric, "If you become ill, die fast."

Do you remember that one? You probably remember the quote, but do you recall the nutcase who authored that quote?

donkelly


----- Original Message -----
From: Dick La Jeunesse <dicklajeunesse at hotmail.com>
To: Grove Net <grovenet at rdrop.com>
Sent: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 20:02:57 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: [Grovenet] Oregon's first sales tax


We interrupt your debate on class warfare and health care entitlements for a brief announcement.

The voters have just approved Oregon's first sales tax!  

No, Measure 67 was not about the $140 increase in minimum tax ($10M), it was about a sales tax on gross revenues ($390M)!


But, don't worry - you won't have to pay the tax (directly, yet) - you just voted to impose the retroactive tax on "wealthy" businesses - whether or not they make a profit and whether or not they are still in business.  

Ask your neighbors who work for those "wealthy" local businesses how they feel about investing in more jobs versus just trying to survive.  We have already lost Times Litho, Deli in the Grove, Forest Grove Cleaners, the UPS Store, etc.  to the recession.  Now what?

Ask your neighbors who survived the layoffs at Woodfold how they feel
about the future of their company now that the State will pile
retroactive taxes on top of their lost revenues for the past year. 

Our friends in Salem are only a short step away from extending that sales tax to the rest of the "wealth" in the State where all of us get to pay it directly.  The camel's nose is in the tent.


Dick "need one of those State jobs that still gives raises during recessions" LaJeunesse


 		 	   		  
_________________________________________________________________
Your E-mail and More On-the-Go. Get Windows Live Hotmail Free.
http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/196390709/direct/01/
_______________________________________________
GroveNet mailing list
GroveNet at rdrop.com
http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet



From nospam03 at comcast.net  Wed Jan 27 12:22:57 2010
From: nospam03 at comcast.net (Steve)
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 20:22:57 +0000
Subject: [Grovenet] Health care rescue rally rescheduled
In-Reply-To: <1A7EE907-E4E2-4601-8F7B-94E3E86B0C33@teleport.com>
References: <2105412202.16303471264617393202.JavaMail.root@sz0024a.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net><1A7EE907-E4E2-4601-8F7B-94E3E86B0C33@teleport.com>
Message-ID: <861450800-1264623779-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1562961743-@bda284.bisx.prod.on.blackberry>

You've said it many times Walt. Why not this time?
You just called donkelly a racist for disagreeing with you on health care. 
-----Original Message-----
From: Walt Wentz <waltw at teleport.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 10:57:07 
To: Forest Grove local interests list<grovenet at rdrop.com>
Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Health care rescue rally rescheduled

What? Lies? Untruths in government?

"I am shocked-- shocked! To find that gambling going on in here!"

I think Obama's real "offense" is the elephant in the room that  
nobody mentions.

On Jan 27, 2010, at 10:36 AM, donkelly wrote:

> Yes, but a president who continually lies divides me too, and I am  
> a registered democrat........for awhile at least.
>
> Even my patience is growing thin.
>
> Obam just screams, "attack me" so outspoken people accomodate him.
>
> donkelly
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Allen Warren <osubuckeye59 at yahoo.com>
> To: Forest Grove local interests list <grovenet at rdrop.com>
> Sent: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 18:28:04 +0000 (UTC)
> Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Health care rescue rally rescheduled
>
> If our elected officials can't seem to or flat out WON'T agree to  
> work together, with the likes of Bill O'Reilly and Glenn Beck and  
> Keith Obermann ranting and screaming, is it any wonder "we the  
> people" are divisive?
>
>
> Allen Warren
>
> From: Walt Wentz <waltw at teleport.com>
>
> To: Forest Grove local interests list <grovenet at rdrop.com>
> Sent: Wed, January 27, 2010 10:20:22 AM
> Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Health care rescue rally rescheduled
>
> Hooboy! Reading this, does anyone really wonder why we're sliding
> backwards into the 1890s?
> Walt
>
> On Jan 27, 2010, at 10:07 AM, Jamsm at aol.com wrote:
>
>>
>> Yes - Health care system is broken !
>>
>> But is the liberal solution the answer?  Absolutely NOT!
>>
>> Will the elected officials actually come up with a solution that
>> is fair
>> to all?
>> Don't hold your breath as you can't make everyone happy with issues
>> this
>> complex.
>>
>> Am glad the Marxists are 'quitting' their position  and/or dumping
>> their
>> support of the socialist health care plan.  Death  to the 'Move-On'
>> Marxist
>> organization!  Tea-Party Time!
>>
>> The Grouch
>>
>>
>> In a message dated 1/27/2010 12:45:11 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
>> waltw at teleport.com writes:
>>
>> Hey,  Gary, I'm on Medicare! So are "you" paying for it? Yep. But
>> then, so  am "I."
>> So what do you propose? That the working poor, and those who  can't
>> afford criminally high-cost insurance, should just die in a  ditch
>> somewhere... hopefully tastefully out of the sight of "you and  your
>> children and your grandchildren?"
>> Walt (Or Mr. Wentz, if you  insist)
>> On Jan 27, 2010, at 8:12 AM, Gary Duncan-Gates wrote:
>>
>>>  Mr. Wentz does not want to pay for his own healthcare.  He wants
>>> you, and more likely, your children and grandchildren to pay  for
>>> his healthcare.
>>>
>>> If you don't want to pay  for your own healthcare, and would rather
>>> have your friends and  neighbors, under threat of imprisonment, pay
>>> it for you, by all  means, attend this gathering.
>>>
>>> If you believe in individualism  and self-sufficiency, well,
>>> apparently this is not the state  for you.
>>>
>>> Gary
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>  ________________________________
>>> From: Walt Wentz  <waltw at teleport.com>
>>> To: Forest Grove local interests list  <grovenet at rdrop.com>
>>> Sent: Tue, January 26, 2010 11:13:24  PM
>>> Subject: [Grovenet] Health care rescue rally  rescheduled
>>>
>>> Hello, All:
>>> MoveOn.org decided to shift  all Oregon events to Thursday, to avoid
>>> conflicts with the special  election. Accordingly, the Forest Grove
>>> health care rescue rally will  be held in conjunction with the
>>> regular
>>> weekly peace rally, which  takes place at 4:30-5:30 p.m.,
>>> Thursday, in
>>> front of the  library.
>>> A link to the MoveOn event:
>>>  http://pol.moveon.org/event/events/event.html?event_id=100670
>>> Hope to  see you there!
>>> Walt Wentz
>>>
>>>  _______________________________________________
>>> GroveNet mailing  list
>>> GroveNet at rdrop.com
>>>  http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>  _______________________________________________
>>> GroveNet mailing  list
>>> GroveNet at rdrop.com
>>>  http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> GroveNet  mailing  list
>> GroveNet at rdrop.com
>> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> GroveNet mailing list
>> GroveNet at rdrop.com
>> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet


_______________________________________________
GroveNet mailing list
GroveNet at rdrop.com
http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet


From admin at jeffhowden.com  Wed Jan 27 12:25:50 2010
From: admin at jeffhowden.com (Jeff Howden)
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 12:25:50 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] Health care rescue rally rescheduled
In-Reply-To: <861450800-1264623779-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1562961743-@bda284.bisx.prod.on.blackberry>
References: <2105412202.16303471264617393202.JavaMail.root@sz0024a.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net><1A7EE907-E4E2-4601-8F7B-94E3E86B0C33@teleport.com>
	<861450800-1264623779-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1562961743-@bda284.bisx.prod.on.blackberry>
Message-ID: <005801ca9f8e$eb9eb660$c2dc2320$@com>

Steve,

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> From: Steve
> 
> You've said it many times Walt. Why not this time?
> You just called donkelly a racist for disagreeing with you on health
> care.
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

.... and you've just jumped the shark.

Jeff



From oldredwagon at verizon.net  Wed Jan 27 12:38:38 2010
From: oldredwagon at verizon.net (Marian Cakarnis)
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 12:38:38 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] Oregon's first sales tax
In-Reply-To: <COL106-W35576525236E5EE25A6AE4D35D0@phx.gbl>
References: <COL106-W35576525236E5EE25A6AE4D35D0@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <CBC5DFD673024D4185A36F81EE0EF02A@JeffVAIO>

I've always been against a sales tax for two reasons:
1.  I couldn't support the need for a brand new infrastructure to collect 
the tax from all those consumers.  It is just so incredibly inefficient.
2.  It isn't a fair tax.  Someone making $200,000 a year would pay the same 
tax on a roll of toilet paper, as someone making $20,000 a year.  The 
percentages are too far apart and it isn't right.

Voting for 67 created the sales tax without creating the new infrastructure 
and at least filters the tax through the business to the consumers.  At the 
same time ,it might avoid the creation of a traditionally collected sales 
tax, because we can argue that we already have one and shouldn't create 
another one - or at least that is my hope!

Marian

--------------------------------------------------
From: "Dick La Jeunesse" <dicklajeunesse at hotmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2010 12:02 PM
To: "Grove Net" <grovenet at rdrop.com>
Subject: [Grovenet] Oregon's first sales tax

>
> We interrupt your debate on class warfare and health care entitlements for 
> a brief announcement.
>
> The voters have just approved Oregon's first sales tax!
>
> No, Measure 67 was not about the $140 increase in minimum tax ($10M), it 
> was about a sales tax on gross revenues ($390M)!
>
>
> But, don't worry - you won't have to pay the tax (directly, yet) - you 
> just voted to impose the retroactive tax on "wealthy" businesses - whether 
> or not they make a profit and whether or not they are still in business.
>
> Ask your neighbors who work for those "wealthy" local businesses how they 
> feel about investing in more jobs versus just trying to survive.  We have 
> already lost Times Litho, Deli in the Grove, Forest Grove Cleaners, the 
> UPS Store, etc.  to the recession.  Now what?
>
> Ask your neighbors who survived the layoffs at Woodfold how they feel
> about the future of their company now that the State will pile
> retroactive taxes on top of their lost revenues for the past year.
>
> Our friends in Salem are only a short step away from extending that sales 
> tax to the rest of the "wealth" in the State where all of us get to pay it 
> directly.  The camel's nose is in the tent.
>
>
> Dick "need one of those State jobs that still gives raises during 
> recessions" LaJeunesse
>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Your E-mail and More On-the-Go. Get Windows Live Hotmail Free.
> http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/196390709/direct/01/
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet 



From edavie at verizon.net  Wed Jan 27 12:40:23 2010
From: edavie at verizon.net (Ed Davie)
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 12:40:23 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] Oregon's first sales tax
References: <COL106-W35576525236E5EE25A6AE4D35D0@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <6261052BF69C42F9AA38A3D89A69A72B@700x>

To a degree, I agree with you but you are crying over spilt milk!
Now what?
Ed

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Dick La Jeunesse" <dicklajeunesse at hotmail.com>
To: "Grove Net" <grovenet at rdrop.com>
Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2010 12:02 PM
Subject: [Grovenet] Oregon's first sales tax


> 
> We interrupt your debate on class warfare and health care entitlements for a brief announcement.
> 
> The voters have just approved Oregon's first sales tax!  
> 
> No, Measure 67 was not about the $140 increase in minimum tax ($10M), it was about a sales tax on gross revenues ($390M)!
> 
> 
> But, don't worry - you won't have to pay the tax (directly, yet) - you just voted to impose the retroactive tax on "wealthy" businesses - whether or not they make a profit and whether or not they are still in business.  
> 
> Ask your neighbors who work for those "wealthy" local businesses how they feel about investing in more jobs versus just trying to survive.  We have already lost Times Litho, Deli in the Grove, Forest Grove Cleaners, the UPS Store, etc.  to the recession.  Now what?
> 
> Ask your neighbors who survived the layoffs at Woodfold how they feel
> about the future of their company now that the State will pile
> retroactive taxes on top of their lost revenues for the past year. 
> 
> Our friends in Salem are only a short step away from extending that sales tax to the rest of the "wealth" in the State where all of us get to pay it directly.  The camel's nose is in the tent.
> 
> 
> Dick "need one of those State jobs that still gives raises during recessions" LaJeunesse
> 
> 
>       
> _________________________________________________________________
> Your E-mail and More On-the-Go. Get Windows Live Hotmail Free.
> http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/196390709/direct/01/
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>

From allnutt at verizon.net  Wed Jan 27 12:57:42 2010
From: allnutt at verizon.net (Katie Allnutt)
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 12:57:42 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] Health care rescue rally rescheduled
In-Reply-To: <861450800-1264623779-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1562961743-@bda284.bisx.prod.on.blackberry>
References: <2105412202.16303471264617393202.JavaMail.root@sz0024a.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net><1A7EE907-E4E2-4601-8F7B-94E3E86B0C33@teleport.com>
	<861450800-1264623779-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1562961743-@bda284.bisx.prod.on.blackberry>
Message-ID: <C55B8F47-D155-439A-A780-6017881EC26E@verizon.net>

???
I thought "Elephant in the room" was all the republicans who are the  
party of 'nope'.

Maybe people can interpret words differently. Why is yours better  
than mine?

Katie


On Jan 27, 2010, at 12:22 PM, Steve wrote:

> You've said it many times Walt. Why not this time?
> You just called donkelly a racist for disagreeing with you on  
> health care.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Walt Wentz <waltw at teleport.com>
> Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 10:57:07
> To: Forest Grove local interests list<grovenet at rdrop.com>
> Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Health care rescue rally rescheduled
>
> What? Lies? Untruths in government?
>
> "I am shocked-- shocked! To find that gambling going on in here!"
>
> I think Obama's real "offense" is the elephant in the room that
> nobody mentions.
>
> On Jan 27, 2010, at 10:36 AM, donkelly wrote:
>
>> Yes, but a president who continually lies divides me too, and I am
>> a registered democrat........for awhile at least.
>>
>> Even my patience is growing thin.
>>
>> Obam just screams, "attack me" so outspoken people accomodate him.
>>
>> donkelly
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: Allen Warren <osubuckeye59 at yahoo.com>
>> To: Forest Grove local interests list <grovenet at rdrop.com>
>> Sent: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 18:28:04 +0000 (UTC)
>> Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Health care rescue rally rescheduled
>>
>> If our elected officials can't seem to or flat out WON'T agree to
>> work together, with the likes of Bill O'Reilly and Glenn Beck and
>> Keith Obermann ranting and screaming, is it any wonder "we the
>> people" are divisive?
>>
>>
>> Allen Warren
>>
>> From: Walt Wentz <waltw at teleport.com>
>>
>> To: Forest Grove local interests list <grovenet at rdrop.com>
>> Sent: Wed, January 27, 2010 10:20:22 AM
>> Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Health care rescue rally rescheduled
>>
>> Hooboy! Reading this, does anyone really wonder why we're sliding
>> backwards into the 1890s?
>> Walt
>>
>> On Jan 27, 2010, at 10:07 AM, Jamsm at aol.com wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Yes - Health care system is broken !
>>>
>>> But is the liberal solution the answer?  Absolutely NOT!
>>>
>>> Will the elected officials actually come up with a solution that
>>> is fair
>>> to all?
>>> Don't hold your breath as you can't make everyone happy with issues
>>> this
>>> complex.
>>>
>>> Am glad the Marxists are 'quitting' their position  and/or dumping
>>> their
>>> support of the socialist health care plan.  Death  to the 'Move-On'
>>> Marxist
>>> organization!  Tea-Party Time!
>>>
>>> The Grouch
>>>
>>>
>>> In a message dated 1/27/2010 12:45:11 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
>>> waltw at teleport.com writes:
>>>
>>> Hey,  Gary, I'm on Medicare! So are "you" paying for it? Yep. But
>>> then, so  am "I."
>>> So what do you propose? That the working poor, and those who  can't
>>> afford criminally high-cost insurance, should just die in a  ditch
>>> somewhere... hopefully tastefully out of the sight of "you and  your
>>> children and your grandchildren?"
>>> Walt (Or Mr. Wentz, if you  insist)
>>> On Jan 27, 2010, at 8:12 AM, Gary Duncan-Gates wrote:
>>>
>>>>  Mr. Wentz does not want to pay for his own healthcare.  He wants
>>>> you, and more likely, your children and grandchildren to pay  for
>>>> his healthcare.
>>>>
>>>> If you don't want to pay  for your own healthcare, and would rather
>>>> have your friends and  neighbors, under threat of imprisonment, pay
>>>> it for you, by all  means, attend this gathering.
>>>>
>>>> If you believe in individualism  and self-sufficiency, well,
>>>> apparently this is not the state  for you.
>>>>
>>>> Gary
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>  ________________________________
>>>> From: Walt Wentz  <waltw at teleport.com>
>>>> To: Forest Grove local interests list  <grovenet at rdrop.com>
>>>> Sent: Tue, January 26, 2010 11:13:24  PM
>>>> Subject: [Grovenet] Health care rescue rally  rescheduled
>>>>
>>>> Hello, All:
>>>> MoveOn.org decided to shift  all Oregon events to Thursday, to  
>>>> avoid
>>>> conflicts with the special  election. Accordingly, the Forest Grove
>>>> health care rescue rally will  be held in conjunction with the
>>>> regular
>>>> weekly peace rally, which  takes place at 4:30-5:30 p.m.,
>>>> Thursday, in
>>>> front of the  library.
>>>> A link to the MoveOn event:
>>>>  http://pol.moveon.org/event/events/event.html?event_id=100670
>>>> Hope to  see you there!
>>>> Walt Wentz
>>>>
>>>>  _______________________________________________
>>>> GroveNet mailing  list
>>>> GroveNet at rdrop.com
>>>>  http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>  _______________________________________________
>>>> GroveNet mailing  list
>>>> GroveNet at rdrop.com
>>>>  http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> GroveNet  mailing  list
>>> GroveNet at rdrop.com
>>> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> GroveNet mailing list
>>> GroveNet at rdrop.com
>>> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> GroveNet mailing list
>> GroveNet at rdrop.com
>> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> GroveNet mailing list
>> GroveNet at rdrop.com
>> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> GroveNet mailing list
>> GroveNet at rdrop.com
>> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet



From rab at jurislex.com  Wed Jan 27 13:03:14 2010
From: rab at jurislex.com (Bob Browning)
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 13:03:14 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] Health care rescue rally rescheduled
In-Reply-To: <8D94A946E17E9941AE94FC3AE11CAB7E03D43DCE76@everest.ad.pacificu.edu>
References: <34f3a.6a76c99.3891dae9@aol.com>	<1830FEF7-8893-42A0-925A-45C4AB6FC318@teleport.com>	<712592.17548.qm@web112108.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>	<4B608EA2.4030609@jurislex.com>
	<8D94A946E17E9941AE94FC3AE11CAB7E03D43DCE76@everest.ad.pacificu.edu>
Message-ID: <4B60AA12.7040802@jurislex.com>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/attachments/20100127/e8832623/attachment.html 

From rab at jurislex.com  Wed Jan 27 13:20:07 2010
From: rab at jurislex.com (Bob Browning)
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 13:20:07 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] Corporate Personhood
Message-ID: <4B60AE07.1050709@jurislex.com>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/attachments/20100127/7b8e4647/attachment.html 

From rab at jurislex.com  Wed Jan 27 13:23:11 2010
From: rab at jurislex.com (Bob Browning)
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 13:23:11 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] Oregon's first sales tax
In-Reply-To: <6261052BF69C42F9AA38A3D89A69A72B@700x>
References: <COL106-W35576525236E5EE25A6AE4D35D0@phx.gbl>
	<6261052BF69C42F9AA38A3D89A69A72B@700x>
Message-ID: <4B60AEBF.7080400@jurislex.com>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/attachments/20100127/34d07c3f/attachment.html 

From waltw at teleport.com  Wed Jan 27 13:24:42 2010
From: waltw at teleport.com (Walt Wentz)
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 13:24:42 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] Health care rescue rally rescheduled
In-Reply-To: <1975860828.16340351264621332914.JavaMail.root@sz0024a.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net>
References: <1975860828.16340351264621332914.JavaMail.root@sz0024a.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net>
Message-ID: <0021F2A5-08EC-4DEB-801C-71AAC7AF7E00@teleport.com>

"Constitutional right to buy health coverage?" never heard of it.
At the moment, you are allowed-- constitutionally-- to buy overpriced  
health insurance from a gigantic monopoly industry that has lobbied  
itself free of anti-trust laws, if you can afford it.
Or, if you cannot, you are perfectly free to do without, and to hope  
to die quickly if you get some expensive, lingering disease that may  
bankrupt your family and drive them from their home.
Some sort of middle ground offering both choices just seems  
reasonable, doesn't it? American civilization isn't some sort of  
stupid rah-rah, winner-take-all football game.
Despite what the Neocons say, humanity didn't survive and evolve by  
competing, but by cooperating.
Walt Wentz


On Jan 27, 2010, at 11:42 AM, donkelly wrote:

> Talking heads would no impact at all if the did not resonate on a  
> nerve now and then.
>
> Such as, do you want to go to jail for standing on your  
> constitutional right to buy health coverage from anyone you want,  
> or not buy it from anyone, (self financed?)?
>
> donkelly
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Walt Wentz <waltw at teleport.com>
> To: Forest Grove local interests list <grovenet at rdrop.com>
> Sent: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 19:27:36 +0000 (UTC)
> Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Health care rescue rally rescheduled
>
> Bingo, Katie! Spot on!
>
> On Jan 27, 2010, at 11:24 AM, Katie Allnutt wrote:
>
>> My guess is that we are closer to agreement on most issues than the
>> pundits would like us to believe.
>>
>> Do we all agree the system is broken?  check
>>
>> Do we all agree the solution will be complex? check
>>
>> Do we all agree that both the government and the for profit insurance
>> industry conglomerates are powerful and can do things that are
>> incredibly hard for us as individuals to change? check.
>>
>> Would we all like to be able to join a very large risk pool to spread
>> the risk? Probably - at least I do
>>
>> Do we all want the doctor to treat us based on what is wrong with us,
>> not based on who pays for his trip to Hawaii? check
>>
>> And we probably agree with 95% of the solutions but someone is
>> screaming the labels we don't want to hear.
>> Would you like your doctor to be able to talk to you about advanced
>> directives or would that conversation be the first death panel?
>>
>> We are closer to agreement than the talking heads want to admit.
>>
>> Katie
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Jan 27, 2010, at 10:07 AM, Jamsm at aol.com wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Yes - Health care system is broken !
>>>
>>> But is the liberal solution the answer?  Absolutely NOT!
>>>
>>> Will the elected officials actually come up with a solution that
>>> is fair
>>> to all?
>>> Don't hold your breath as you can't make everyone happy with issues
>>> this
>>> complex.
>>>
>>> Am glad the Marxists are 'quitting' their position  and/or dumping
>>> their
>>> support of the socialist health care plan.  Death  to the 'Move-On'
>>> Marxist
>>> organization!  Tea-Party Time!
>>>
>>> The Grouch
>>>
>>>
>>> In a message dated 1/27/2010 12:45:11 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
>>> waltw at teleport.com writes:
>>>
>>> Hey,  Gary, I'm on Medicare! So are "you" paying for it? Yep. But
>>> then, so  am "I."
>>> So what do you propose? That the working poor, and those who  can't
>>> afford criminally high-cost insurance, should just die in a  ditch
>>> somewhere... hopefully tastefully out of the sight of "you and  your
>>> children and your grandchildren?"
>>> Walt (Or Mr. Wentz, if you  insist)
>>> On Jan 27, 2010, at 8:12 AM, Gary Duncan-Gates wrote:
>>>
>>>>  Mr. Wentz does not want to pay for his own healthcare.  He wants
>>>> you, and more likely, your children and grandchildren to pay  for
>>>> his healthcare.
>>>>
>>>> If you don't want to pay  for your own healthcare, and would rather
>>>> have your friends and  neighbors, under threat of imprisonment, pay
>>>> it for you, by all  means, attend this gathering.
>>>>
>>>> If you believe in individualism  and self-sufficiency, well,
>>>> apparently this is not the state  for you.
>>>>
>>>> Gary
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>  ________________________________
>>>> From: Walt Wentz  <waltw at teleport.com>
>>>> To: Forest Grove local interests list  <grovenet at rdrop.com>
>>>> Sent: Tue, January 26, 2010 11:13:24  PM
>>>> Subject: [Grovenet] Health care rescue rally  rescheduled
>>>>
>>>> Hello, All:
>>>> MoveOn.org decided to shift  all Oregon events to Thursday, to  
>>>> avoid
>>>> conflicts with the special  election. Accordingly, the Forest Grove
>>>> health care rescue rally will  be held in conjunction with the
>>>> regular
>>>> weekly peace rally, which  takes place at 4:30-5:30 p.m.,
>>>> Thursday, in
>>>> front of the  library.
>>>> A link to the MoveOn event:
>>>>  http://pol.moveon.org/event/events/event.html?event_id=100670
>>>> Hope to  see you there!
>>>> Walt Wentz
>>>>
>>>>  _______________________________________________
>>>> GroveNet mailing  list
>>>> GroveNet at rdrop.com
>>>>  http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>  _______________________________________________
>>>> GroveNet mailing  list
>>>> GroveNet at rdrop.com
>>>>  http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> GroveNet  mailing  list
>>> GroveNet at rdrop.com
>>> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> GroveNet mailing list
>>> GroveNet at rdrop.com
>>> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> GroveNet mailing list
>> GroveNet at rdrop.com
>> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet



From rab at jurislex.com  Wed Jan 27 13:27:13 2010
From: rab at jurislex.com (Bob Browning)
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 13:27:13 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] Oregon's first sales tax
In-Reply-To: <311375759.16353731264623085153.JavaMail.root@sz0024a.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net>
References: <311375759.16353731264623085153.JavaMail.root@sz0024a.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net>
Message-ID: <4B60AFB1.3090405@jurislex.com>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/attachments/20100127/5c1eef74/attachment.html 

From rab at jurislex.com  Wed Jan 27 13:35:06 2010
From: rab at jurislex.com (Bob Browning)
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 13:35:06 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] Health care rescue rally rescheduled
In-Reply-To: <05ba01ca9f6c$fe49e360$faddaa20$@com>
References: <B54C6124-167A-4988-A5B9-3FE7328C1873@teleport.com>	<571447.91066.qm@web46313.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
	<05ba01ca9f6c$fe49e360$faddaa20$@com>
Message-ID: <4B60B18A.2030401@jurislex.com>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/attachments/20100127/a6bc4dbf/attachment.html 

From osubuckeye59 at yahoo.com  Wed Jan 27 13:39:42 2010
From: osubuckeye59 at yahoo.com (Allen Warren)
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 13:39:42 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [Grovenet] Health care rescue rally rescheduled
In-Reply-To: <4B60AA12.7040802@jurislex.com>
References: <34f3a.6a76c99.3891dae9@aol.com>
	<1830FEF7-8893-42A0-925A-45C4AB6FC318@teleport.com>
	<712592.17548.qm@web112108.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<4B608EA2.4030609@jurislex.com>
	<8D94A946E17E9941AE94FC3AE11CAB7E03D43DCE76@everest.ad.pacificu.edu>
	<4B60AA12.7040802@jurislex.com>
Message-ID: <707829.45856.qm@web112115.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>

If Murray Hill, Inc. is allowed to run for Congress, what about the idea of a Corporation running for President?

 
Allen Warren

From: Bob Browning <rab at jurislex.com>

To: Forest Grove local interests list <grovenet at rdrop.com>
Sent: Wed, January 27, 2010 1:03:14 PM
Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Health care rescue rally rescheduled

Mike, I  believe this recent case is wrongly decided,
both for the reason that I believe that both Osborn v. President,
Directors and Company of the Bank of the United States, 22 U.S. 738, 6
L.Ed. 204, 9 Wheat. 738 (1824) and County of Santa Clara v. Southern Pac Co, People of the State of California v.
Central Pac Co, Same v. Southern Pac Co, 118 U.S. 394, 6 S.Ct. 1132, 30
L.Ed. 118 (1886)  are wrongly decided, and
because the recent case overturns almost a century of Supreme Court
precedent regarding the ability to regulate corporations differently
than individuals. The quote set forth below clearly indicates the
contradictions created by the "corporate personhood"
formulation originally created in Osborn, as well as the totally bogus
pronouncement of corporate "personhood" in the oft cited 1886 case. 

In my view, and contrary to the pronouncements of many commentators on
Fox News, what Congress has now created with the support of the US
Supreme Court is not a socialist or communist state, but rather a form
of free and unbridled corporate power, in which the individuals (except
for those at the top) feel powerless. This new state, perhaps best
exemplified by the Supreme Court's selection of Dubya as President in
2000 and by his policies which followed 9-11, is in the nature of a
fascist state without the "corporatist" grouping usually associated
with historical fascism. "Fascism,
pronounced /?f???z?m/, is a
political ideology that seeks to combine radical and authoritarian nationalism with a corporatist economic system, and which is usually considered to be on the far
right of the traditional left-right political
spectrum, though a good number of historians regard fascism to be a mixture of
left and right, or neither left nor right." 
(From en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism , foot notes deleted.)  (In this
context, corporatist refers not to the "business corporation", but
rather to "groups such as agricultural, business, ethnic, labour,
military, patronage, scientific, or religious groups are joined
together into a single body in which the different groups are mandated
to negotiate with each other to establish policies in the interest of
the multiple groups within the body".
 (From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatism , footnotes
deleted.)

So, there you are. You asked what time it is, and now you know how
to build a digital watch!!

Have fun over the next 200 years, and try to be one of the few elites
at the top, because the vast majority of the rest of us are going to
really be screwed in the next two centuries!!

bob "a real person" browning
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


This
>
>is the text of the 1886 Supreme Court decision
>granting corporations the same rights as living persons under the Fourteenth
>Amendment to the
> Constitution.
>Quoting
>from David Korten's The
>Post-Corporate World, Life After Capitalism (pp.185-6):  
> 
>>          In
>>1886, . . . in the case of Santa Clara County
>>v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company, the U.S. Supreme
>>Court decided that a private corporation is a person and entitled to
>>the legal rights and protections the Constitution
>>affords to any person. Because the Constitution makes no
>>mention of corporations, it is a fairly clear case of the
>>Court's taking it upon itself to rewrite the Constitution.
>> 
>>>>          Far
>>more remarkable, however, is that the doctrine of corporate
>>personhood, which subsequently became a cornerstone of
>>corporate law, was introduced into this 1886 decision
>>without argument. According to the official case record,
>>Supreme Court Justice Morrison Remick Waite simply pronounced before
>>the beginning of arguement in the case
>>of Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad
>>Company that
>> 
>>         
>>>"The
>>>court does not wish
>>>to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the
>>>Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids a State
>>>to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection
>>>of the laws, applies to these corporations. We are all of opinion
>>>that it does."
>>>           The
>>court reporter duly entered into the summary record of the Court's
>>findings that
>>  
>>         
>>>"The
>>>defendant Corporations are persons within the intent of the
>>>clause in section 1 of the Fourteen
>>>Amendment to the Constitution of
>>>the United States, which forbids a State to deny to any person
>>>within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
>>>           Thus it
>>was that a
>>two-sentence assertion by a single judge elevated corporations to
>>the status of persons under the law, prepared the way for the rise
>>of global corporate rule, and thereby changed the course of
>>history.
>> 
>>>>          
>>The
>doctrine of corporate personhood creates an interesting legal
>contradiction.
>The corporation is owned by its shareholders and is therefore
>their property. If it is also a legal person, then it is a person owned
>by others and thus exists in a condition of
>slavery -- a status explicitly forbidden by the Thirteenth Amendment to
>the Constitution. So is a corporation a person
>illegally held in servitude by its shareholders? Or is it a
>person who enjoys the rights of personhood that take precedence
>over the presumed ownership rights of its shareholders? So far
>as I have been able to determine, this contradiction has not been
>directly addressed by the courts.
> 
>This file is mirrored from: http://laws.findlaw.com/us/118/394.html

On 1/27/2010 11:08 AM, Steele, Mike wrote: 
Bob, not to change the subject, but I'd like to know your opinion of the recent Supreme Court decision re corporations.  I see that a corporation (Murrayhill Inc.), taking all this to heart, is now running for a congressional seat in Maryland.
>
>--Mike
>



      

From nospam03 at comcast.net  Wed Jan 27 13:43:25 2010
From: nospam03 at comcast.net (Steve)
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 21:43:25 +0000
Subject: [Grovenet] Oregon's first sales tax
In-Reply-To: <4B60AEBF.7080400@jurislex.com>
References: <COL106-W35576525236E5EE25A6AE4D35D0@phx.gbl><6261052BF69C42F9AA38A3D89A69A72B@700x><4B60AEBF.7080400@jurislex.com>
Message-ID: <842336107-1264628607-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1885321235-@bda284.bisx.prod.on.blackberry>

How is that bob? 
Many bills contain all the taxes itemized. Business is a pass through. 
Maybe we should find a new business package, replace the corporation. 
-----Original Message-----
From: Bob Browning <rab at jurislex.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 13:23:11 
To: Ed Davie<edavie at verizon.net>; Forest Grove local interests list<grovenet at rdrop.com>
Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Oregon's first sales tax

_______________________________________________
GroveNet mailing list
GroveNet at rdrop.com
http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet



From waltw at teleport.com  Wed Jan 27 14:06:41 2010
From: waltw at teleport.com (Walt Wentz)
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 14:06:41 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] Health care rescue rally rescheduled
In-Reply-To: <861450800-1264623779-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1562961743-@bda284.bisx.prod.on.blackberry>
References: <2105412202.16303471264617393202.JavaMail.root@sz0024a.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net><1A7EE907-E4E2-4601-8F7B-94E3E86B0C33@teleport.com>
	<861450800-1264623779-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1562961743-@bda284.bisx.prod.on.blackberry>
Message-ID: <1DB73448-0C45-4CA0-AFF1-A6A1F9EC91C7@teleport.com>

Did I call anyone anything? donkelly wrote, "Obam just screams,  
"attack me" so outspoken people accomodate him." I implied that many  
of those "outspoken" people are attacking Obama because his real  
offense, rather than the unsubstantiated charge of "continual  
lying"  (an offense for which we might have to impeach every  
President who ever served, except perhaps the hapless Jimmy Carter)  
was that he is an "other"-- an "outsider"--an "elitist" --in short,  
an educated black man. Obviously, since donkelly voted for Obama, it  
would be stupid of me to call HIM racist.
If Barack Obama's name were Barry Patrick O'Bama and he had red hair  
and freckles, do you really think we would have the same level of  
sustained, implacable sniping, the same picking at and inflation of  
every faux pas or exaggeration or yes, even mistruth uttered by the  
POTUS?
Cast your memory back just two years. We lived under what was perhaps  
the most persistently secretive and untruthful administration in  
living memory,  yet any criticism was muted, sporadic and limited  
largely to the powerless "liberals"  and "radicals." As a result, we  
are now in deep economic doo-doo, trying to extricate ourselves from  
one horribly expensive and pointless war, in real danger of losing  
another war-- the real war-- and heavily in debt to Red China, a  
growing superpower that does not wish us well.
And Obama inherited all this mess, plus an opposition party that  
votes in lockstep-- yet people denounce him because, in his first  
year in office, he does not just wave a magic wand and make it all go  
away. Why? I am hard put to think of any other plausible reason.

On Jan 27, 2010, at 12:22 PM, Steve wrote:

> You've said it many times Walt. Why not this time?
> You just called donkelly a racist for disagreeing with you on  
> health care.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Walt Wentz <waltw at teleport.com>
> Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 10:57:07
> To: Forest Grove local interests list<grovenet at rdrop.com>
> Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Health care rescue rally rescheduled
>
> What? Lies? Untruths in government?
>
> "I am shocked-- shocked! To find that gambling going on in here!"
>
> I think Obama's real "offense" is the elephant in the room that
> nobody mentions.
>
> On Jan 27, 2010, at 10:36 AM, donkelly wrote:
>
>> Yes, but a president who continually lies divides me too, and I am
>> a registered democrat........for awhile at least.
>>
>> Even my patience is growing thin.
>>
>> Obam just screams, "attack me" so outspoken people accomodate him.
>>
>> donkelly
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: Allen Warren <osubuckeye59 at yahoo.com>
>> To: Forest Grove local interests list <grovenet at rdrop.com>
>> Sent: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 18:28:04 +0000 (UTC)
>> Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Health care rescue rally rescheduled
>>
>> If our elected officials can't seem to or flat out WON'T agree to
>> work together, with the likes of Bill O'Reilly and Glenn Beck and
>> Keith Obermann ranting and screaming, is it any wonder "we the
>> people" are divisive?
>>
>>
>> Allen Warren
>>
>> From: Walt Wentz <waltw at teleport.com>
>>
>> To: Forest Grove local interests list <grovenet at rdrop.com>
>> Sent: Wed, January 27, 2010 10:20:22 AM
>> Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Health care rescue rally rescheduled
>>
>> Hooboy! Reading this, does anyone really wonder why we're sliding
>> backwards into the 1890s?
>> Walt
>>
>> On Jan 27, 2010, at 10:07 AM, Jamsm at aol.com wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Yes - Health care system is broken !
>>>
>>> But is the liberal solution the answer?  Absolutely NOT!
>>>
>>> Will the elected officials actually come up with a solution that
>>> is fair
>>> to all?
>>> Don't hold your breath as you can't make everyone happy with issues
>>> this
>>> complex.
>>>
>>> Am glad the Marxists are 'quitting' their position  and/or dumping
>>> their
>>> support of the socialist health care plan.  Death  to the 'Move-On'
>>> Marxist
>>> organization!  Tea-Party Time!
>>>
>>> The Grouch
>>>
>>>
>>> In a message dated 1/27/2010 12:45:11 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
>>> waltw at teleport.com writes:
>>>
>>> Hey,  Gary, I'm on Medicare! So are "you" paying for it? Yep. But
>>> then, so  am "I."
>>> So what do you propose? That the working poor, and those who  can't
>>> afford criminally high-cost insurance, should just die in a  ditch
>>> somewhere... hopefully tastefully out of the sight of "you and  your
>>> children and your grandchildren?"
>>> Walt (Or Mr. Wentz, if you  insist)
>>> On Jan 27, 2010, at 8:12 AM, Gary Duncan-Gates wrote:
>>>
>>>>  Mr. Wentz does not want to pay for his own healthcare.  He wants
>>>> you, and more likely, your children and grandchildren to pay  for
>>>> his healthcare.
>>>>
>>>> If you don't want to pay  for your own healthcare, and would rather
>>>> have your friends and  neighbors, under threat of imprisonment, pay
>>>> it for you, by all  means, attend this gathering.
>>>>
>>>> If you believe in individualism  and self-sufficiency, well,
>>>> apparently this is not the state  for you.
>>>>
>>>> Gary
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>  ________________________________
>>>> From: Walt Wentz  <waltw at teleport.com>
>>>> To: Forest Grove local interests list  <grovenet at rdrop.com>
>>>> Sent: Tue, January 26, 2010 11:13:24  PM
>>>> Subject: [Grovenet] Health care rescue rally  rescheduled
>>>>
>>>> Hello, All:
>>>> MoveOn.org decided to shift  all Oregon events to Thursday, to  
>>>> avoid
>>>> conflicts with the special  election. Accordingly, the Forest Grove
>>>> health care rescue rally will  be held in conjunction with the
>>>> regular
>>>> weekly peace rally, which  takes place at 4:30-5:30 p.m.,
>>>> Thursday, in
>>>> front of the  library.
>>>> A link to the MoveOn event:
>>>>  http://pol.moveon.org/event/events/event.html?event_id=100670
>>>> Hope to  see you there!
>>>> Walt Wentz
>>>>
>>>>  _______________________________________________
>>>> GroveNet mailing  list
>>>> GroveNet at rdrop.com
>>>>  http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>  _______________________________________________
>>>> GroveNet mailing  list
>>>> GroveNet at rdrop.com
>>>>  http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> GroveNet  mailing  list
>>> GroveNet at rdrop.com
>>> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> GroveNet mailing list
>>> GroveNet at rdrop.com
>>> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> GroveNet mailing list
>> GroveNet at rdrop.com
>> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> GroveNet mailing list
>> GroveNet at rdrop.com
>> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> GroveNet mailing list
>> GroveNet at rdrop.com
>> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet



From waltw at teleport.com  Wed Jan 27 14:23:38 2010
From: waltw at teleport.com (Walt Wentz)
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 14:23:38 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] Oregon's first sales tax
In-Reply-To: <CBC5DFD673024D4185A36F81EE0EF02A@JeffVAIO>
References: <COL106-W35576525236E5EE25A6AE4D35D0@phx.gbl>
	<CBC5DFD673024D4185A36F81EE0EF02A@JeffVAIO>
Message-ID: <1301D021-C4D7-4446-9750-C4B680454568@teleport.com>

Yep, people who buy a roll of toilet paper would pay the same amount  
in taxes. Yet somebody who bought a Lambroghini would pay more taxes  
than somebody who bought a used Ford... and somebody who repainted  
his outhouse would pay less taxes than somebody who installed a gold- 
plated commode. In short, sales taxes land more heavily on people who  
buy more... namely, people with more disposable income. Seems  
reasonable in that light, doesn't it?

On Jan 27, 2010, at 12:38 PM, Marian Cakarnis wrote:

> I've always been against a sales tax for two reasons:
> 1.  I couldn't support the need for a brand new infrastructure to  
> collect
> the tax from all those consumers.  It is just so incredibly  
> inefficient.
> 2.  It isn't a fair tax.  Someone making $200,000 a year would pay  
> the same
> tax on a roll of toilet paper, as someone making $20,000 a year.  The
> percentages are too far apart and it isn't right.
>
> Voting for 67 created the sales tax without creating the new  
> infrastructure
> and at least filters the tax through the business to the  
> consumers.  At the
> same time ,it might avoid the creation of a traditionally collected  
> sales
> tax, because we can argue that we already have one and shouldn't  
> create
> another one - or at least that is my hope!
>
> Marian
>
> --------------------------------------------------
> From: "Dick La Jeunesse" <dicklajeunesse at hotmail.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2010 12:02 PM
> To: "Grove Net" <grovenet at rdrop.com>
> Subject: [Grovenet] Oregon's first sales tax
>
>>
>> We interrupt your debate on class warfare and health care  
>> entitlements for
>> a brief announcement.
>>
>> The voters have just approved Oregon's first sales tax!
>>
>> No, Measure 67 was not about the $140 increase in minimum tax  
>> ($10M), it
>> was about a sales tax on gross revenues ($390M)!
>>
>>
>> But, don't worry - you won't have to pay the tax (directly, yet) -  
>> you
>> just voted to impose the retroactive tax on "wealthy" businesses -  
>> whether
>> or not they make a profit and whether or not they are still in  
>> business.
>>
>> Ask your neighbors who work for those "wealthy" local businesses  
>> how they
>> feel about investing in more jobs versus just trying to survive.   
>> We have
>> already lost Times Litho, Deli in the Grove, Forest Grove  
>> Cleaners, the
>> UPS Store, etc.  to the recession.  Now what?
>>
>> Ask your neighbors who survived the layoffs at Woodfold how they feel
>> about the future of their company now that the State will pile
>> retroactive taxes on top of their lost revenues for the past year.
>>
>> Our friends in Salem are only a short step away from extending  
>> that sales
>> tax to the rest of the "wealth" in the State where all of us get  
>> to pay it
>> directly.  The camel's nose is in the tent.
>>
>>
>> Dick "need one of those State jobs that still gives raises during
>> recessions" LaJeunesse
>>
>>
>>
>> _________________________________________________________________
>> Your E-mail and More On-the-Go. Get Windows Live Hotmail Free.
>> http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/196390709/direct/01/
>> _______________________________________________
>> GroveNet mailing list
>> GroveNet at rdrop.com
>> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet



From steelem at pacificu.edu  Wed Jan 27 14:25:02 2010
From: steelem at pacificu.edu (Steele, Mike)
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 14:25:02 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] Health care rescue rally rescheduled
In-Reply-To: <707829.45856.qm@web112115.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
References: <34f3a.6a76c99.3891dae9@aol.com>
	<1830FEF7-8893-42A0-925A-45C4AB6FC318@teleport.com>
	<712592.17548.qm@web112108.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<4B608EA2.4030609@jurislex.com>
	<8D94A946E17E9941AE94FC3AE11CAB7E03D43DCE76@everest.ad.pacificu.edu>
	<4B60AA12.7040802@jurislex.com>
	<707829.45856.qm@web112115.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <8D94A946E17E9941AE94FC3AE11CAB7E03D43DD47F@everest.ad.pacificu.edu>

We have a bingo!!

Good one, Allen.

I now hear that the Maryland case is a test.  It certainly seems to be within the corporatist spirit.

Take care...

--Mike

-----Original Message-----
From: grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com [mailto:grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com] On Behalf Of Allen Warren
Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2010 1:40 PM
To: Forest Grove local interests list
Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Health care rescue rally rescheduled

If Murray Hill, Inc. is allowed to run for Congress, what about the idea of a Corporation running for President?

 
Allen Warren

From: Bob Browning <rab at jurislex.com>

To: Forest Grove local interests list <grovenet at rdrop.com>
Sent: Wed, January 27, 2010 1:03:14 PM
Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Health care rescue rally rescheduled

Mike, I  believe this recent case is wrongly decided,
both for the reason that I believe that both Osborn v. President,
Directors and Company of the Bank of the United States, 22 U.S. 738, 6
L.Ed. 204, 9 Wheat. 738 (1824) and County of Santa Clara v. Southern Pac Co, People of the State of California v.
Central Pac Co, Same v. Southern Pac Co, 118 U.S. 394, 6 S.Ct. 1132, 30
L.Ed. 118 (1886)  are wrongly decided, and
because the recent case overturns almost a century of Supreme Court
precedent regarding the ability to regulate corporations differently
than individuals. The quote set forth below clearly indicates the
contradictions created by the "corporate personhood"
formulation originally created in Osborn, as well as the totally bogus
pronouncement of corporate "personhood" in the oft cited 1886 case. 

In my view, and contrary to the pronouncements of many commentators on
Fox News, what Congress has now created with the support of the US
Supreme Court is not a socialist or communist state, but rather a form
of free and unbridled corporate power, in which the individuals (except
for those at the top) feel powerless. This new state, perhaps best
exemplified by the Supreme Court's selection of Dubya as President in
2000 and by his policies which followed 9-11, is in the nature of a
fascist state without the "corporatist" grouping usually associated
with historical fascism. "Fascism,
pronounced /?f???z?m/, is a
political ideology that seeks to combine radical and authoritarian nationalism with a corporatist economic system, and which is usually considered to be on the far
right of the traditional left-right political
spectrum, though a good number of historians regard fascism to be a mixture of
left and right, or neither left nor right." 
(From en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism , foot notes deleted.)  (In this
context, corporatist refers not to the "business corporation", but
rather to "groups such as agricultural, business, ethnic, labour,
military, patronage, scientific, or religious groups are joined
together into a single body in which the different groups are mandated
to negotiate with each other to establish policies in the interest of
the multiple groups within the body".
 (From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatism , footnotes
deleted.)

So, there you are. You asked what time it is, and now you know how
to build a digital watch!!

Have fun over the next 200 years, and try to be one of the few elites
at the top, because the vast majority of the rest of us are going to
really be screwed in the next two centuries!!

bob "a real person" browning
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


This
>
>is the text of the 1886 Supreme Court decision
>granting corporations the same rights as living persons under the Fourteenth
>Amendment to the
> Constitution.
>Quoting
>from David Korten's The
>Post-Corporate World, Life After Capitalism (pp.185-6):  
> 
>>          In
>>1886, . . . in the case of Santa Clara County
>>v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company, the U.S. Supreme
>>Court decided that a private corporation is a person and entitled to
>>the legal rights and protections the Constitution
>>affords to any person. Because the Constitution makes no
>>mention of corporations, it is a fairly clear case of the
>>Court's taking it upon itself to rewrite the Constitution.
>> 
>>>>          Far
>>more remarkable, however, is that the doctrine of corporate
>>personhood, which subsequently became a cornerstone of
>>corporate law, was introduced into this 1886 decision
>>without argument. According to the official case record,
>>Supreme Court Justice Morrison Remick Waite simply pronounced before
>>the beginning of arguement in the case
>>of Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad
>>Company that
>> 
>>         
>>>"The
>>>court does not wish
>>>to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the
>>>Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids a State
>>>to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection
>>>of the laws, applies to these corporations. We are all of opinion
>>>that it does."
>>>           The
>>court reporter duly entered into the summary record of the Court's
>>findings that
>>  
>>         
>>>"The
>>>defendant Corporations are persons within the intent of the
>>>clause in section 1 of the Fourteen
>>>Amendment to the Constitution of
>>>the United States, which forbids a State to deny to any person
>>>within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
>>>           Thus it
>>was that a
>>two-sentence assertion by a single judge elevated corporations to
>>the status of persons under the law, prepared the way for the rise
>>of global corporate rule, and thereby changed the course of
>>history.
>> 
>>>>          
>>The
>doctrine of corporate personhood creates an interesting legal
>contradiction.
>The corporation is owned by its shareholders and is therefore
>their property. If it is also a legal person, then it is a person owned
>by others and thus exists in a condition of
>slavery -- a status explicitly forbidden by the Thirteenth Amendment to
>the Constitution. So is a corporation a person
>illegally held in servitude by its shareholders? Or is it a
>person who enjoys the rights of personhood that take precedence
>over the presumed ownership rights of its shareholders? So far
>as I have been able to determine, this contradiction has not been
>directly addressed by the courts.
> 
>This file is mirrored from: http://laws.findlaw.com/us/118/394.html

On 1/27/2010 11:08 AM, Steele, Mike wrote: 
Bob, not to change the subject, but I'd like to know your opinion of the recent Supreme Court decision re corporations.  I see that a corporation (Murrayhill Inc.), taking all this to heart, is now running for a congressional seat in Maryland.
>
>--Mike
>



      
_______________________________________________
GroveNet mailing list
GroveNet at rdrop.com
http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet


From rlo42 at yahoo.com  Wed Jan 27 14:48:18 2010
From: rlo42 at yahoo.com (+rlo)
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 14:48:18 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [Grovenet] Oregon's first sales tax
In-Reply-To: <4B60AEBF.7080400@jurislex.com>
Message-ID: <731012.93420.qm@web35301.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

BS on it NOT being a sales tax...what do you think is going to happen as all the corps start doing their taxes and find out how much NEW tax they have to pay...ready for the $4.00/gal or maybe even $5.00/gal gas?

--- On Wed, 1/27/10, Bob Browning <rab at jurislex.com> wrote:


From: Bob Browning <rab at jurislex.com>
Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Oregon's first sales tax
To: "Ed Davie" <edavie at verizon.net>, "Forest Grove local interests list" <grovenet at rdrop.com>
Date: Wednesday, January 27, 2010, 1:23 PM


Nope, not a sales tax, but a gross receipts tax. It is not imposed on the buyer, but on the seller. Big difference!!

bob "no sales tax" browning
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
On 1/27/2010 12:40 PM, Ed Davie wrote: 
To a degree, I agree with you but you are crying over spilt milk!
Now what?
Ed
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Dick La Jeunesse" <dicklajeunesse at hotmail.com>
To: "Grove Net" <grovenet at rdrop.com>
Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2010 12:02 PM
Subject: [Grovenet] Oregon's first sales tax
  
We interrupt your debate on class warfare and health care entitlements for a brief announcement.

The voters have just approved Oregon's first sales tax!  

No, Measure 67 was not about the $140 increase in minimum tax ($10M), it was about a sales tax on gross revenues ($390M)!
    

-----Inline Attachment Follows-----


_______________________________________________
GroveNet mailing list
GroveNet at rdrop.com
http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet



      

From admin at jeffhowden.com  Wed Jan 27 15:17:01 2010
From: admin at jeffhowden.com (Jeff Howden)
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 15:17:01 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] Oregon's first sales tax
In-Reply-To: <731012.93420.qm@web35301.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <4B60AEBF.7080400@jurislex.com>
	<731012.93420.qm@web35301.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <009201ca9fa6$d5ae06e0$810a14a0$@com>

> From: +rlo
> 
> BS on it NOT being a sales tax...what do you think is
> going to happen as all the corps start doing their
> taxes and find out how much NEW tax they have to pay...
> ready for the $4.00/gal or maybe even $5.00/gal gas?

Sorry, that still doesn't make it a sales tax.  By your logic that'd mean
that all taxes they already pay along with any mandatory governmental fees
for doing business should also be called a sales tax.

Jeff



From jo.david at verizon.net  Wed Jan 27 19:48:24 2010
From: jo.david at verizon.net (David Morelli)
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 19:48:24 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] Health care rescue rally rescheduled
In-Reply-To: <707829.45856.qm@web112115.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
References: <34f3a.6a76c99.3891dae9@aol.com>
	<1830FEF7-8893-42A0-925A-45C4AB6FC318@teleport.com>
	<712592.17548.qm@web112108.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>	<4B608EA2.4030609@jurislex.com>
	<8D94A946E17E9941AE94FC3AE11CAB7E03D43DCE76@everest.ad.pacificu.edu>
	<4B60AA12.7040802@jurislex.com>
	<707829.45856.qm@web112115.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <A2061045-C524-4A85-A025-24BE94B8A10D@verizon.net>

Constitution: Article 2,
 "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President;"
No one claims that corporations are "natural born Citizens".  Perhaps that is next.

David

On Jan 27, 2010, at 1:39 PM, Allen Warren wrote:

> If Murray Hill, Inc. is allowed to run for Congress, what about the idea of a Corporation running for President?
> 
> 
> Allen Warren

From jo.david at verizon.net  Wed Jan 27 20:11:27 2010
From: jo.david at verizon.net (David Morelli)
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 20:11:27 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] Health care rescue rally rescheduled
In-Reply-To: <4B60AA12.7040802@jurislex.com>
References: <34f3a.6a76c99.3891dae9@aol.com>
	<1830FEF7-8893-42A0-925A-45C4AB6FC318@teleport.com>
	<712592.17548.qm@web112108.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>	<4B608EA2.4030609@jurislex.com>
	<8D94A946E17E9941AE94FC3AE11CAB7E03D43DCE76@everest.ad.pacificu.edu>
	<4B60AA12.7040802@jurislex.com>
Message-ID: <6FE6D18D-D2ED-4D88-BEE1-5C66D23290F2@verizon.net>

This contradiction should be explored.  Imagine the value of your stock investment should it be determined that the stockholders are barred from owning, buying or selling shares in a corporate "person".  It would be like owning General Motors stock.

That would leave the question of "who is legally able to run a corporation, if it is a legal person in its own right?"

David

On Jan 27, 2010, at 1:03 PM, Bob Browning wrote:

>> ...        
>> The doctrine of corporate personhood creates an interesting legal contradiction. The corporation is owned by its shareholders and is therefore their property. If it is also a legal person, then it is a person owned by others and thus exists in a condition of slavery -- a status explicitly forbidden by the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution. So is a corporation a person illegally held in servitude by its shareholders? Or is it a person who enjoys the rights of personhood that take precedence over the presumed ownership rights of its shareholders? So far as I have been able to determine, this contradiction has not been directly addressed by the courts. 
> This file is mirrored from: http://laws.findlaw.com/us/118/394.html



From jo.david at verizon.net  Wed Jan 27 20:30:06 2010
From: jo.david at verizon.net (David Morelli)
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 20:30:06 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] Health care rescue rally rescheduled
In-Reply-To: <4B60AA12.7040802@jurislex.com>
References: <34f3a.6a76c99.3891dae9@aol.com>
	<1830FEF7-8893-42A0-925A-45C4AB6FC318@teleport.com>
	<712592.17548.qm@web112108.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>	<4B608EA2.4030609@jurislex.com>
	<8D94A946E17E9941AE94FC3AE11CAB7E03D43DCE76@everest.ad.pacificu.edu>
	<4B60AA12.7040802@jurislex.com>
Message-ID: <1D585CC4-1321-436A-91B4-3AD8ABF6771B@verizon.net>

Wrongly decided?  No!  Wrongly quoted.  

Santa Clara v. Southern Pacific decided that fences that line the railroad tracks are not part of the "road bed" and "the assessment, which was the foundation of the action, included property of material value which the state board was without jurisdiction to assess".  And " As the judgment can be sustained upon this ground, it is not necessary to consider any other questions raised by the pleadings and the facts found by the court. "

The court's decision had nothing to do with the 14th Amendment argument.  Never did.  Amazing how illiterate some lawyers and judges can be.  And how artful liars some lawyers and judges can be.

David


On Jan 27, 2010, at 1:03 PM, Bob Browning wrote:

> Mike, I  believe this recent case is wrongly decided, both for the reason that I believe that both Osborn v. President, Directors and Company of the Bank of the United States, 22 U.S. 738, 6 L.Ed. 204, 9 Wheat. 738 (1824) and County of Santa Clara v. Southern Pac Co, People of the State of California v. Central Pac Co, Same v. Southern Pac Co, 118 U.S. 394, 6 S.Ct. 1132, 30 L.Ed. 118 (1886)  are wrongly decided, and because the recent case overturns almost a century of Supreme Court precedent regarding the ability to regulate corporations differently than individuals.


From rlo42 at yahoo.com  Wed Jan 27 21:02:10 2010
From: rlo42 at yahoo.com (+rlo)
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 21:02:10 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [Grovenet] Oregon's first sales tax
In-Reply-To: <009201ca9fa6$d5ae06e0$810a14a0$@com>
Message-ID: <933432.77900.qm@web35308.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Well, aren't they???????????????????????????????? GeeZe people...OPEN YOUR EYES!

--- On Wed, 1/27/10, Jeff Howden <admin at jeffhowden.com> wrote:


From: Jeff Howden <admin at jeffhowden.com>
Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Oregon's first sales tax
To: "'Forest Grove local interests list'" <grovenet at rdrop.com>
Date: Wednesday, January 27, 2010, 3:17 PM


> From: +rlo
> 
> BS on it NOT being a sales tax...what do you think is
> going to happen as all the corps start doing their
> taxes and find out how much NEW tax they have to pay...
> ready for the $4.00/gal or maybe even $5.00/gal gas?

Sorry, that still doesn't make it a sales tax.? By your logic that'd mean
that all taxes they already pay along with any mandatory governmental fees
for doing business should also be called a sales tax.

Jeff


_______________________________________________
GroveNet mailing list
GroveNet at rdrop.com
http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet



      

From jo.david at verizon.net  Wed Jan 27 21:23:38 2010
From: jo.david at verizon.net (David Morelli)
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 21:23:38 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] Health care rescue rally rescheduled
In-Reply-To: <4B60AA12.7040802@jurislex.com>
References: <34f3a.6a76c99.3891dae9@aol.com>
	<1830FEF7-8893-42A0-925A-45C4AB6FC318@teleport.com>
	<712592.17548.qm@web112108.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>	<4B608EA2.4030609@jurislex.com>
	<8D94A946E17E9941AE94FC3AE11CAB7E03D43DCE76@everest.ad.pacificu.edu>
	<4B60AA12.7040802@jurislex.com>
Message-ID: <5D41B25D-F532-47ED-96C1-CF6B69AB1F9F@verizon.net>

One aspect of this decision was that Congress may regulate foreign corporations' political speech.   

We need not reach the question whether the Government has a compelling interest in preventing foreign individuals or associations from influencing our Nation?s political process. Cf. 2 U. S. C. ?441e (contribution and expenditure ban applied to ?foreign national[s]?). Section 441b is not limited to corporations or associations that were created in foreign countries or funded predominately by foreign shareholders. Section 441b therefore would be overbroad even if we assumed,arguendo, that the Government has a compelling interest in limiting foreign influence over our political process. SeeBroadrick , 413 U. S., at 615.

FOX **is** a foreign person who is very active in influencing our Nation's political process.  Congress should start there.

David



On Jan 27, 2010, at 1:03 PM, Bob Browning wrote:

> ...
> In my view, and contrary to the pronouncements of many commentators on Fox News, what Congress has now created with the support of the US Supreme Court is not a socialist or communist state, but rather a form of free and unbridled corporate power,...
> bob "a real person" browning

From jo.david at verizon.net  Wed Jan 27 21:55:47 2010
From: jo.david at verizon.net (David Morelli)
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 21:55:47 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] Oregon's first sales tax
In-Reply-To: <933432.77900.qm@web35308.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <933432.77900.qm@web35308.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <A794ADF2-5046-4E73-A070-76AC149194CF@verizon.net>

Jeff,

No, they are a cost of doing business, and are expensed by the corporation when computing the net income.  

Sales taxes are collected by the seller, and the taxes are never included in the profit and loss calculations.

If you are unclear on the difference, talk to your tax consultant.

To the extent that the price increases to cover the tax, the customer pays.  If the price increase does not cover all of the tax the company pays the tax through lost profits.  And there are lost sales opportunities due to increased prices, that is borne by both the customer and the seller.

That doesn't change a gross receipts tax into a sales tax.  Or change a minimum income tax into a sales tax.

Calling it a "sales tax" is an attempt to connect the emotional response usually received by sales taxes in Oregon to a different tax.

David
  
On Jan 27, 2010, at 9:02 PM, +rlo wrote:

> Well, aren't they???????????????????????????????? GeeZe people...OPEN YOUR EYES!
...
> Sorry, that still doesn't make it a sales tax.  By your logic that'd mean that all taxes they already pay along with any mandatory governmental fees for doing business should also be called a sales tax.
> 
> Jeff



From admin at jeffhowden.com  Wed Jan 27 21:59:57 2010
From: admin at jeffhowden.com (Jeff Howden)
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 21:59:57 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] Oregon's first sales tax
In-Reply-To: <933432.77900.qm@web35308.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <009201ca9fa6$d5ae06e0$810a14a0$@com>
	<933432.77900.qm@web35308.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <00d801ca9fdf$2048dd50$60da97f0$@com>

> From: +rlo [mailto:rlo42 at yahoo.com]
> 
> Well, aren't they???????????????????????????????? GeeZe
> people...OPEN YOUR EYES!

Easy there sparky.  There's no need for yelling or key smashing as exhibited
above.

http://www.evitamins.com/product.asp?pid=1337

In order to correctly label something a sales tax, it must actually fall
under the established definition of a sales tax.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sales_tax

Calling a sea lion a cat simply because it has the word "lion" in its name
does not, in fact, make it a member of any of the 41 feline species.

Jeff



From jo.david at verizon.net  Wed Jan 27 22:09:37 2010
From: jo.david at verizon.net (David Morelli)
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 22:09:37 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] Oregon's first sales tax
In-Reply-To: <A794ADF2-5046-4E73-A070-76AC149194CF@verizon.net>
References: <933432.77900.qm@web35308.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<A794ADF2-5046-4E73-A070-76AC149194CF@verizon.net>
Message-ID: <12313799-AB13-431D-B2A7-88EB03DA8215@verizon.net>

Apology to Jeff, 

Response is to rlo

On Jan 27, 2010, at 9:55 PM, David Morelli wrote:

> Jeff,
> ...
> 
> David
> 
> On Jan 27, 2010, at 9:02 PM, +rlo wrote:
> 
>> Well, aren't they???????????????????????????????? GeeZe people...OPEN YOUR EYES!
> ...
>> Sorry, that still doesn't make it a sales tax.  By your logic that'd mean that all taxes they already pay along with any mandatory governmental fees for doing business should also be called a sales tax.
>> 
>> Jeff

From Jamsm at aol.com  Wed Jan 27 23:21:24 2010
From: Jamsm at aol.com (Jamsm at aol.com)
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 02:21:24 EST
Subject: [Grovenet] Oregon's first sales tax
Message-ID: <4ae76.7b0e4d9d.389294f4@aol.com>

The bigger issue that I see is that the people of Oregon got nailed again  
('black mailed') by the 'Tax & Spenders'.   ['black   mailed': give us what 
we want or we will take something away from you  that you consider very 
important.]

The 'Tax & Spenders' gave out pay raises and high costing  benefits to all 
their employees (for which many are probably expendable and  provide no real 
services or generate any product - paper shufflers) then 'black  mailed' 
the citizens for more money. 

This time the 'ignorant ones' complied and gave the 'Tax &  Spenders' what 
they wanted.  The 'ignorant ones' think the  new taxes will not cost them 
anything! Thinking: "As long as I am not taxed then  yes I vote for it, 
because it will not cost me anything. Or tax the rich (I'm  not rich), they can 
afford it."] In some cases it may not cost them more;  but I bet in the long 
run, it will impact the cost of all goods sold in  Oregon.
 
Since they got away with this time - watch out - as they will use this  
tactic again to raise taxes.  They know it works!
 
The Grouch
 
 
 
In a message dated 1/27/2010 5:24:07 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,  
waltw at teleport.com writes:

Yep,  people who buy a roll of toilet paper would pay the same amount  
in  taxes. Yet somebody who bought a Lambroghini would pay more taxes   
than somebody who bought a used Ford... and somebody who repainted   
his outhouse would pay less taxes than somebody who installed a gold-  
plated commode. In short, sales taxes land more heavily on people  who  
buy more... namely, people with more disposable income.  Seems  
reasonable in that light, doesn't it?

On Jan 27, 2010,  at 12:38 PM, Marian Cakarnis wrote:

> I've always been against a  sales tax for two reasons:
> 1.  I couldn't support the need for a  brand new infrastructure to  
> collect
> the tax from all  those consumers.  It is just so incredibly  
>  inefficient.
> 2.  It isn't a fair tax.  Someone making  $200,000 a year would pay  
> the same
> tax on a roll of  toilet paper, as someone making $20,000 a year.  The
> percentages  are too far apart and it isn't right.
>
> Voting for 67 created  the sales tax without creating the new  
> infrastructure
>  and at least filters the tax through the business to the  
>  consumers.  At the
> same time ,it might avoid the creation of a  traditionally collected  
> sales
> tax, because we can argue  that we already have one and shouldn't  
> create
> another  one - or at least that is my hope!
>
> Marian
>
>  --------------------------------------------------
> From: "Dick La  Jeunesse" <dicklajeunesse at hotmail.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, January  27, 2010 12:02 PM
> To: "Grove Net" <grovenet at rdrop.com>
>  Subject: [Grovenet] Oregon's first sales tax
>
>>
>>  We interrupt your debate on class warfare and health care  
>>  entitlements for
>> a brief announcement.
>>
>> The  voters have just approved Oregon's first sales tax!
>>
>>  No, Measure 67 was not about the $140 increase in minimum tax   
>> ($10M), it
>> was about a sales tax on gross revenues  ($390M)!
>>
>>
>> But, don't worry - you won't have  to pay the tax (directly, yet) -  
>> you
>> just voted  to impose the retroactive tax on "wealthy" businesses -  
>>  whether
>> or not they make a profit and whether or not they are  still in  
>> business.
>>
>> Ask your  neighbors who work for those "wealthy" local businesses  
>> how  they
>> feel about investing in more jobs versus just trying to  survive.   
>> We have
>> already lost Times  Litho, Deli in the Grove, Forest Grove  
>> Cleaners,  the
>> UPS Store, etc.  to the recession.  Now  what?
>>
>> Ask your neighbors who survived the layoffs at  Woodfold how they feel
>> about the future of their company now that  the State will pile
>> retroactive taxes on top of their lost  revenues for the past year.
>>
>> Our friends in Salem are  only a short step away from extending  
>> that  sales
>> tax to the rest of the "wealth" in the State where all of us  get  
>> to pay it
>> directly.  The camel's nose  is in the tent.
>>
>>
>> Dick "need one of those  State jobs that still gives raises during
>> recessions"  LaJeunesse
>>
>>
>>
>>  _________________________________________________________________
>>  Your E-mail and More On-the-Go. Get Windows Live Hotmail Free.
>>  http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/196390709/direct/01/
>>  _______________________________________________
>> GroveNet mailing  list
>> GroveNet at rdrop.com
>>  http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>
>
>  _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing  list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
>  http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet


_______________________________________________
GroveNet  mailing  list
GroveNet at rdrop.com
http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet


From jo.david at verizon.net  Wed Jan 27 23:29:20 2010
From: jo.david at verizon.net (David Morelli)
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 23:29:20 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] Oregon's first sales tax
In-Reply-To: <4ae76.7b0e4d9d.389294f4@aol.com>
References: <4ae76.7b0e4d9d.389294f4@aol.com>
Message-ID: <EE362620-5C71-479D-9ECC-00CDB6DE4C7B@verizon.net>

Just for my curiosity, do you have any observations about the process the Conservatives will use to get people to vote for them at the mid term elections?

Do you expect it to be qualitatively different?

David

On Jan 27, 2010, at 11:21 PM, jamsm at aol.com wrote:

> ...
> Since they got away with this time - watch out - as they will use this  tactic again to raise taxes.  They know it works!
> 
> The Grouch



From waltw at teleport.com  Wed Jan 27 23:46:17 2010
From: waltw at teleport.com (Walt Wentz)
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 23:46:17 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] Oregon's first sales tax
In-Reply-To: <4ae76.7b0e4d9d.389294f4@aol.com>
References: <4ae76.7b0e4d9d.389294f4@aol.com>
Message-ID: <6C776F94-5C3F-477A-8C04-E09320686189@teleport.com>

Or, to rephrase:
"Give us what we need to pay for the same level of services, or we  
can't provide that level anymore."
As for all the "probably expendable" state employees, why not get  
specific? Which state employees or agencies would you like to see  
eliminated, and what benefits or disadvantages would derive from  
their elimination? Give us some specifics, and a cost-benefit  
rundown, on each, OK? The DMV, perhaps? Medicaid? The Public Schools?  
Fish and Game?  Hey, yeah, let's just keep chopping out all them  
"superfluous" state employees and agencies, and soon we won't be  
paying ANY taxes at all! And will be back to living in the Wild West  
days, medicating our own ailments with dandelion root and trading  
moldy beaver skins for sacks of flour. Wow! Sounds great, doesn't  
it?  ;^)

On Jan 27, 2010, at 11:21 PM, Jamsm at aol.com wrote:

> The bigger issue that I see is that the people of Oregon got nailed  
> again
> ('black mailed') by the 'Tax & Spenders'.   ['black   mailed': give  
> us what
> we want or we will take something away from you  that you consider  
> very
> important.]
>
> The 'Tax & Spenders' gave out pay raises and high costing  benefits  
> to all
> their employees (for which many are probably expendable and   
> provide no real
> services or generate any product - paper shufflers) then 'black   
> mailed'
> the citizens for more money.
>
> This time the 'ignorant ones' complied and gave the 'Tax &   
> Spenders' what
> they wanted.  The 'ignorant ones' think the  new taxes will not  
> cost them
> anything! Thinking: "As long as I am not taxed then  yes I vote for  
> it,
> because it will not cost me anything. Or tax the rich (I'm  not  
> rich), they can
> afford it."] In some cases it may not cost them more;  but I bet in  
> the long
> run, it will impact the cost of all goods sold in  Oregon.
>
> Since they got away with this time - watch out - as they will use this
> tactic again to raise taxes.  They know it works!
>
> The Grouch
>
>
>
> In a message dated 1/27/2010 5:24:07 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
> waltw at teleport.com writes:
>
> Yep,  people who buy a roll of toilet paper would pay the same amount
> in  taxes. Yet somebody who bought a Lambroghini would pay more taxes
> than somebody who bought a used Ford... and somebody who repainted
> his outhouse would pay less taxes than somebody who installed a gold-
> plated commode. In short, sales taxes land more heavily on people  who
> buy more... namely, people with more disposable income.  Seems
> reasonable in that light, doesn't it?
>
> On Jan 27, 2010,  at 12:38 PM, Marian Cakarnis wrote:
>
>> I've always been against a  sales tax for two reasons:
>> 1.  I couldn't support the need for a  brand new infrastructure to
>> collect
>> the tax from all  those consumers.  It is just so incredibly
>>  inefficient.
>> 2.  It isn't a fair tax.  Someone making  $200,000 a year would pay
>> the same
>> tax on a roll of  toilet paper, as someone making $20,000 a year.   
>> The
>> percentages  are too far apart and it isn't right.
>>
>> Voting for 67 created  the sales tax without creating the new
>> infrastructure
>>  and at least filters the tax through the business to the
>>  consumers.  At the
>> same time ,it might avoid the creation of a  traditionally collected
>> sales
>> tax, because we can argue  that we already have one and shouldn't
>> create
>> another  one - or at least that is my hope!
>>
>> Marian
>>
>>  --------------------------------------------------
>> From: "Dick La  Jeunesse" <dicklajeunesse at hotmail.com>
>> Sent: Wednesday, January  27, 2010 12:02 PM
>> To: "Grove Net" <grovenet at rdrop.com>
>>  Subject: [Grovenet] Oregon's first sales tax
>>
>>>
>>>  We interrupt your debate on class warfare and health care
>>>  entitlements for
>>> a brief announcement.
>>>
>>> The  voters have just approved Oregon's first sales tax!
>>>
>>>  No, Measure 67 was not about the $140 increase in minimum tax
>>> ($10M), it
>>> was about a sales tax on gross revenues  ($390M)!
>>>
>>>
>>> But, don't worry - you won't have  to pay the tax (directly, yet) -
>>> you
>>> just voted  to impose the retroactive tax on "wealthy" businesses -
>>>  whether
>>> or not they make a profit and whether or not they are  still in
>>> business.
>>>
>>> Ask your  neighbors who work for those "wealthy" local businesses
>>> how  they
>>> feel about investing in more jobs versus just trying to  survive.
>>> We have
>>> already lost Times  Litho, Deli in the Grove, Forest Grove
>>> Cleaners,  the
>>> UPS Store, etc.  to the recession.  Now  what?
>>>
>>> Ask your neighbors who survived the layoffs at  Woodfold how they  
>>> feel
>>> about the future of their company now that  the State will pile
>>> retroactive taxes on top of their lost  revenues for the past year.
>>>
>>> Our friends in Salem are  only a short step away from extending
>>> that  sales
>>> tax to the rest of the "wealth" in the State where all of us  get
>>> to pay it
>>> directly.  The camel's nose  is in the tent.
>>>
>>>
>>> Dick "need one of those  State jobs that still gives raises during
>>> recessions"  LaJeunesse
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>  _________________________________________________________________
>>>  Your E-mail and More On-the-Go. Get Windows Live Hotmail Free.
>>>  http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/196390709/direct/01/
>>>  _______________________________________________
>>> GroveNet mailing  list
>>> GroveNet at rdrop.com
>>>  http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>>
>>
>>  _______________________________________________
>> GroveNet mailing  list
>> GroveNet at rdrop.com
>>  http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet  mailing  list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet



From admin at jeffhowden.com  Thu Jan 28 00:13:16 2010
From: admin at jeffhowden.com (Jeff Howden)
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 00:13:16 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] Oregon's first sales tax
In-Reply-To: <4ae76.7b0e4d9d.389294f4@aol.com>
References: <4ae76.7b0e4d9d.389294f4@aol.com>
Message-ID: <010801ca9ff1$bf3b4df0$3db1e9d0$@com>

> [...] 'ignorant ones' [...]

So, because you don't agree with the other side of the debate that means
that those that didn't vote the way you did are now suddenly ignorant?

I'm fairly certain I didn't vote the same way you did, but "ignorant" is not
a label I'd *ever* take on, even on the days I felt the lowest about myself.
No, sir, I think you are mistaken.

Resorting to an ad hominem attack only serves to make your argument weaker.

Jeff



From Jamsm at aol.com  Thu Jan 28 03:57:18 2010
From: Jamsm at aol.com (Jamsm at aol.com)
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 06:57:18 EST
Subject: [Grovenet] Oregon's first sales tax
Message-ID: <1db8.7f3903d1.3892d59e@aol.com>

You are doing what sounds like another "THE SKY IS FALLING..."
More fear mongering, eh!  
I am not going to say anything specific as to whom or what should be  
chopped.
1) I don't care about Oregon (less about CA) - it can drop off into the  
ocean with CA for all I care.
2) You are doing nothing more than attempting to bait me - to  subsequently 
attack- seen it too  many times on this board.
3) In this case - they handed out pay raises and screamed give me - give me 
 - give me OR else!. 
 
a) The first step of this problem of $$ need, came from handing out  raises 
with money they did not have
  b) If they needed even more $$ they could have tightened the belt,  other 
than looking for more money after creating a need for  even more.
 

The Grouch
 
 
In a message dated 1/28/2010 2:46:13 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,  
waltw at teleport.com writes:

Or, to  rephrase:
"Give us what we need to pay for the same level of services, or  we  
can't provide that level anymore."
As for all the "probably  expendable" state employees, why not get  
specific? Which state  employees or agencies would you like to see  
eliminated, and what  benefits or disadvantages would derive from  
their elimination? Give  us some specifics, and a cost-benefit  
rundown, on each, OK? The DMV,  perhaps? Medicaid? The Public Schools?  
Fish and Game?  Hey,  yeah, let's just keep chopping out all them  
"superfluous" state  employees and agencies, and soon we won't be  
paying ANY taxes at  all! And will be back to living in the Wild West  
days, medicating  our own ailments with dandelion root and trading  
moldy beaver skins  for sacks of flour. Wow! Sounds great, doesn't  
it?   ;^)

On Jan 27, 2010, at 11:21 PM, Jamsm at aol.com wrote:

> The  bigger issue that I see is that the people of Oregon got nailed  
>  again
> ('black mailed') by the 'Tax & Spenders'.    ['black   mailed': give  
> us what
> we want or we  will take something away from you  that you consider  
>  very
> important.]
>
> The 'Tax & Spenders' gave out pay  raises and high costing  benefits  
> to all
> their  employees (for which many are probably expendable and   
>  provide no real
> services or generate any product - paper shufflers)  then 'black   
> mailed'
> the citizens for more  money.
>
> This time the 'ignorant ones' complied and gave the  'Tax &   
> Spenders' what
> they wanted.  The  'ignorant ones' think the  new taxes will not  
> cost  them
> anything! Thinking: "As long as I am not taxed then  yes I  vote for  
> it,
> because it will not cost me anything. Or  tax the rich (I'm  not  
> rich), they can
> afford  it."] In some cases it may not cost them more;  but I bet in   
> the long
> run, it will impact the cost of all goods sold  in  Oregon.
>
> Since they got away with this time - watch  out - as they will use this
> tactic again to raise taxes.  They  know it works!
>
> The Grouch
>
>
>
> In a  message dated 1/27/2010 5:24:07 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
>  waltw at teleport.com writes:
>
> Yep,  people who buy a roll of  toilet paper would pay the same amount
> in  taxes. Yet somebody  who bought a Lambroghini would pay more taxes
> than somebody who bought  a used Ford... and somebody who repainted
> his outhouse would pay less  taxes than somebody who installed a gold-
> plated commode. In short,  sales taxes land more heavily on people  who
> buy more... namely,  people with more disposable income.  Seems
> reasonable in that  light, doesn't it?
>
> On Jan 27, 2010,  at 12:38 PM, Marian  Cakarnis wrote:
>
>> I've always been against a  sales tax  for two reasons:
>> 1.  I couldn't support the need for a   brand new infrastructure to
>> collect
>> the tax from  all  those consumers.  It is just so incredibly
>>   inefficient.
>> 2.  It isn't a fair tax.  Someone  making  $200,000 a year would pay
>> the same
>> tax on  a roll of  toilet paper, as someone making $20,000 a year.    
>> The
>> percentages  are too far apart and it isn't  right.
>>
>> Voting for 67 created  the sales tax  without creating the new
>> infrastructure
>>  and at  least filters the tax through the business to the
>>   consumers.  At the
>> same time ,it might avoid the creation of  a  traditionally collected
>> sales
>> tax, because we  can argue  that we already have one and shouldn't
>>  create
>> another  one - or at least that is my  hope!
>>
>> Marian
>>
>>   --------------------------------------------------
>> From: "Dick  La  Jeunesse" <dicklajeunesse at hotmail.com>
>> Sent:  Wednesday, January  27, 2010 12:02 PM
>> To: "Grove Net"  <grovenet at rdrop.com>
>>  Subject: [Grovenet] Oregon's  first sales tax
>>
>>>
>>>  We interrupt  your debate on class warfare and health care
>>>   entitlements for
>>> a brief  announcement.
>>>
>>> The  voters have just  approved Oregon's first sales tax!
>>>
>>>  No,  Measure 67 was not about the $140 increase in minimum tax
>>>  ($10M), it
>>> was about a sales tax on gross revenues   ($390M)!
>>>
>>>
>>> But, don't worry -  you won't have  to pay the tax (directly, yet) -
>>>  you
>>> just voted  to impose the retroactive tax on  "wealthy" businesses -
>>>  whether
>>> or not  they make a profit and whether or not they are  still in
>>>  business.
>>>
>>> Ask your  neighbors who work  for those "wealthy" local businesses
>>> how   they
>>> feel about investing in more jobs versus just trying  to  survive.
>>> We have
>>> already lost  Times  Litho, Deli in the Grove, Forest Grove
>>>  Cleaners,  the
>>> UPS Store, etc.  to the  recession.  Now  what?
>>>
>>> Ask your  neighbors who survived the layoffs at  Woodfold how they   
>>> feel
>>> about the future of their company now  that  the State will pile
>>> retroactive taxes on top of  their lost  revenues for the past year.
>>>
>>>  Our friends in Salem are  only a short step away from  extending
>>> that  sales
>>> tax to the rest of  the "wealth" in the State where all of us  get
>>> to pay  it
>>> directly.  The camel's nose  is in the  tent.
>>>
>>>
>>> Dick "need one of  those  State jobs that still gives raises during
>>>  recessions"   LaJeunesse
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>   _________________________________________________________________
>>>   Your E-mail and More On-the-Go. Get Windows Live Hotmail  Free.
>>>   http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/196390709/direct/01/
>>>   _______________________________________________
>>> GroveNet  mailing  list
>>> GroveNet at rdrop.com
>>>   http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>>
>>
>>   _______________________________________________
>> GroveNet  mailing  list
>> GroveNet at rdrop.com
>>   http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>
>
>  _______________________________________________
> GroveNet   mailing  list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
>  http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>
>  _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing  list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
>  http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet


_______________________________________________
GroveNet  mailing  list
GroveNet at rdrop.com
http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet


From Jamsm at aol.com  Thu Jan 28 04:30:30 2010
From: Jamsm at aol.com (Jamsm at aol.com)
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 07:30:30 EST
Subject: [Grovenet] Oregon's first sales tax
Message-ID: <25a6.ba1ebf5.3892dd66@aol.com>

I do not know who is in power today in Oregon.

"Tax-and-Spenders" usually refers to those that want more and bigger  
government, typically Liberals. Conservatives typically want less  government.  
You quoted my statement as though I was referring to the  conservatives.
I was not.  I was referring to politicians in  general.
 
You are attempting to bait me.  Sorry, I am not playing YOUR  game!
You tried to twist my statement to mean something I didn't say.
 
While I lived in OR I saw the Oregon politicians use many tactics to  
attempt to raise taxes.
I have seen them use this tactic before - most often  the tactic (or 
similar) failed in the days of past.
 
A couple times, that I can remember (do not ask to when as I do not  
remember), they succeeded in getting the new taxes.  The claim then was  that the 
Fire, Police and/or Schools needed more money or those services  would be 
severely chopped.  They got their increased taxes; then they  cut the services 
anyway but at the same time took a healthy pay raise for  themselves.  
Another time they tossed out huge pay raises to those  departments - 
specifically the Fire Department: when they claimed they needed  the money for 
equipment. On that occasion, they came back the next year saying  they needed money 
for equipment again - they did not get their money that  time.
 
There was a time that they used this threat every year for several   years. 
The 'Big Three' untouchable services survived although the taxes were not  
increased.  At least one of those attempts to increase taxes were  when they 
were trying  to bring in sales tax.
 
The Grouch
 
 
 
In a message dated 1/28/2010 2:30:18 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,  
jo.david at verizon.net writes:

Just for  my curiosity, do you have any observations about the process the 
Conservatives  will use to get people to vote for them at the mid term 
elections?

Do  you expect it to be qualitatively different?

David

On Jan 27,  2010, at 11:21 PM, jamsm at aol.com wrote:

> ...
> Since they got  away with this time - watch out - as they will use this  
tactic again to  raise taxes.  They know it works!
> 
> The  Grouch


_______________________________________________
GroveNet  mailing  list
GroveNet at rdrop.com
http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet


From Jamsm at aol.com  Thu Jan 28 04:39:02 2010
From: Jamsm at aol.com (Jamsm at aol.com)
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 07:39:02 EST
Subject: [Grovenet] Oregon's first sales tax
Message-ID: <280b.5689b511.3892df66@aol.com>

Sorry, I did not vote nor am I able to vote in Oregon anymore - I do not  
live there.
I lived in Oregon long enough to see the politics in Oregon use  many 
tactics to get what they wanted.
 
I call the voters ignorant, in this case, due to the fact the tactic is old 
 - see my other recent posts.
Many of the voters are 'ignorant' to the tactic.
Many voters forget and there are many other voters in Oregon that have  not 
seen the tricks that they use.
 
The Grouch
 
 
In a message dated 1/28/2010 3:13:25 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,  
admin at jeffhowden.com writes:

>  [...] 'ignorant ones' [...]

So, because you don't agree with the other  side of the debate that means
that those that didn't vote the way you did  are now suddenly ignorant?

I'm fairly certain I didn't vote the same  way you did, but "ignorant" is 
not
a label I'd *ever* take on, even on the  days I felt the lowest about 
myself.
No, sir, I think you are  mistaken.

Resorting to an ad hominem attack only serves to make your  argument  
weaker.

Jeff


_______________________________________________
GroveNet  mailing  list
GroveNet at rdrop.com
http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet


From rlo42 at yahoo.com  Thu Jan 28 06:00:30 2010
From: rlo42 at yahoo.com (+rlo)
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 06:00:30 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [Grovenet] Oregon's first sales tax
In-Reply-To: <933432.77900.qm@web35308.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <419271.9267.qm@web35305.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

UNSUBSCRIBE PLEASE!

--- On Wed, 1/27/10, +rlo <rlo42 at yahoo.com> wrote:


From: +rlo <rlo42 at yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Oregon's first sales tax
To: jeff at jeffhowden.com, "Forest Grove local interests list" <grovenet at rdrop.com>
Date: Wednesday, January 27, 2010, 9:02 PM


Well, aren't they???????????????????????????????? GeeZe people...OPEN YOUR EYES!

--- On Wed, 1/27/10, Jeff Howden <admin at jeffhowden.com> wrote:


From: Jeff Howden <admin at jeffhowden.com>
Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Oregon's first sales tax
To: "'Forest Grove local interests list'" <grovenet at rdrop.com>
Date: Wednesday, January 27, 2010, 3:17 PM


> From: +rlo
> 
> BS on it NOT being a sales tax...what do you think is
> going to happen as all the corps start doing their
> taxes and find out how much NEW tax they have to pay...
> ready for the $4.00/gal or maybe even $5.00/gal gas?

Sorry, that still doesn't make it a sales tax.? By your logic that'd mean
that all taxes they already pay along with any mandatory governmental fees
for doing business should also be called a sales tax.

Jeff


_______________________________________________
GroveNet mailing list
GroveNet at rdrop.com
http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet



? ? ? 
_______________________________________________
GroveNet mailing list
GroveNet at rdrop.com
http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet



      

From rlo42 at yahoo.com  Thu Jan 28 06:10:06 2010
From: rlo42 at yahoo.com (+rlo)
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 06:10:06 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [Grovenet] Oregon's first sales tax
In-Reply-To: <12313799-AB13-431D-B2A7-88EB03DA8215@verizon.net>
Message-ID: <732585.59465.qm@web35303.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Again, WELL...do YOU really NOT think this gets "added in" SOMEHOW to the price you pay for almost ANY flipping goods or services??? If not then perhaps the open your eyes statement needs an adder for all of you....Open your eyes and THINK!!! oh wait...I get it...its just a cost of doing business...LOL LOL LOL LMAO.....Geesh

--- On Wed, 1/27/10, David Morelli <jo.david at verizon.net> wrote:


From: David Morelli <jo.david at verizon.net>
Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Oregon's first sales tax
To: "Forest Grove local interests list" <grovenet at rdrop.com>
Date: Wednesday, January 27, 2010, 10:09 PM


Apology to Jeff, 

Response is to rlo

On Jan 27, 2010, at 9:55 PM, David Morelli wrote:

> Jeff,
> ...
> 
> David
> 
> On Jan 27, 2010, at 9:02 PM, +rlo wrote:
> 
>> Well, aren't they???????????????????????????????? GeeZe people...OPEN YOUR EYES!
> ...
>> Sorry, that still doesn't make it a sales tax.? By your logic that'd mean that all taxes they already pay along with any mandatory governmental fees for doing business should also be called a sales tax.
>> 
>> Jeff
_______________________________________________
GroveNet mailing list
GroveNet at rdrop.com
http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet



      

From rlo42 at yahoo.com  Thu Jan 28 06:12:35 2010
From: rlo42 at yahoo.com (+rlo)
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 06:12:35 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [Grovenet] Oregon's first sales tax
In-Reply-To: <00d801ca9fdf$2048dd50$60da97f0$@com>
Message-ID: <849666.60858.qm@web35307.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

The H E double hockey sticks there isn't reason to yell...ALL you yes voters cost a lot of people money!!!!!!!! And you will again! Most of the reason I have unsubscribed from your little 20 or so people that think they control the debates etc...you don't even represent the town....
?
I'm done...need to get back to work trying to preserve MY job and the 40-50 others that I have control of...IN PRIVATE INDUSTRY!

--- On Wed, 1/27/10, Jeff Howden <admin at jeffhowden.com> wrote:


From: Jeff Howden <admin at jeffhowden.com>
Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Oregon's first sales tax
To: "'Forest Grove local interests list'" <grovenet at rdrop.com>
Date: Wednesday, January 27, 2010, 9:59 PM


> From: +rlo [mailto:rlo42 at yahoo.com]
> 
> Well, aren't they???????????????????????????????? GeeZe
> people...OPEN YOUR EYES!

Easy there sparky.? There's no need for yelling or key smashing as exhibited
above.

http://www.evitamins.com/product.asp?pid=1337

In order to correctly label something a sales tax, it must actually fall
under the established definition of a sales tax.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sales_tax

Calling a sea lion a cat simply because it has the word "lion" in its name
does not, in fact, make it a member of any of the 41 feline species.

Jeff


_______________________________________________
GroveNet mailing list
GroveNet at rdrop.com
http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet



      

From Jamsm at aol.com  Thu Jan 28 06:19:10 2010
From: Jamsm at aol.com (Jamsm at aol.com)
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 09:19:10 EST
Subject: [Grovenet] Oregon's first sales tax
Message-ID: <4d88.1804acc6.3892f6de@aol.com>

And the liberal succeed in chasing another off the BB
 RLO please do not leave - if nothing else just watch what they have  to 
say.
 
I understand why 'rlo' would think of it as a hidden sales tax.
Very simply put - traditional sales tax is a PERCENTAGE of a sale at the  
cash register.
This new tax - is a PERCENTAGE of the sale of goods before it  reaches the 
cash register - my understanding is the tax is applied whether  the seller 
makes a profit or not on the sale - no deductions, no loses  applied!  Not 
much difference to me - percentage of cost of goods vs  percentage of sale of 
goods!
 
Sounds very destructive to any business environment to me.
 
This tax will likely drive many companies out of business that are on the  
edge of failure (or with very small profit margins) - a final rock thrown  
at them.  Over time, MOST all goods sold in Oregon will probably just  pass 
MOST of the cost on to the buyer.
Those that think  that all the companies will just absorb the expense are 
fooling  themselves with theoretical hypothesis.  
 
Has anyone considered what this might  do to the small eBay,  Amazon and 
other online sellers that are in Oregon.  Most of  these sellers operate with 
a very small profit margins.
 
The Grouch
 
 
In a message dated 1/28/2010 9:01:10 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,  
rlo42 at yahoo.com writes:

UNSUBSCRIBE PLEASE!

--- On Wed, 1/27/10, +rlo  <rlo42 at yahoo.com> wrote:


From: +rlo  <rlo42 at yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Oregon's first sales  tax
To: jeff at jeffhowden.com, "Forest Grove local interests list"  
<grovenet at rdrop.com>
Date: Wednesday, January 27, 2010, 9:02  PM


Well, aren't they???????????????????????????????? GeeZe  people...OPEN YOUR 
EYES!

--- On Wed, 1/27/10, Jeff Howden  <admin at jeffhowden.com> wrote:


From: Jeff Howden  <admin at jeffhowden.com>
Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Oregon's first sales  tax
To: "'Forest Grove local interests list'"  <grovenet at rdrop.com>
Date: Wednesday, January 27, 2010, 3:17  PM


> From: +rlo
> 
> BS on it NOT being a sales  tax...what do you think is
> going to happen as all the corps start  doing their
> taxes and find out how much NEW tax they have to  pay...
> ready for the $4.00/gal or maybe even $5.00/gal  gas?

Sorry, that still doesn't make it a sales tax.  By your logic  that'd mean
that all taxes they already pay along with any mandatory  governmental fees
for doing business should also be called a sales  tax.

Jeff



From NoSpam03 at comcast.net  Thu Jan 28 07:07:01 2010
From: NoSpam03 at comcast.net (Steven)
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 07:07:01 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] Oregon's first sales tax
In-Reply-To: <4d88.1804acc6.3892f6de@aol.com>
References: <4d88.1804acc6.3892f6de@aol.com>
Message-ID: <001501caa02b$8bc2fc90$a348f5b0$@net>

Actually, I am all for taxing business. Just not as an ADDITIONAL tax. And
lets tax things NOT made in Oregon, rather than stuff that is.
Yes, Tariffs. 



From Jamsm at aol.com  Thu Jan 28 07:33:22 2010
From: Jamsm at aol.com (Jamsm at aol.com)
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 10:33:22 EST
Subject: [Grovenet] Oregon's first sales tax
Message-ID: <77ab.670b0ad4.38930842@aol.com>

Jeff did you even READ what you linked to as a reference!  RLO is  correct 
in calling it a sales tax.

_http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sales_tax_ 
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sales_tax) 
>From WIKI:
"Other types of sales taxes include the following:
    *   _Gross receipts taxes_ 
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_receipts_tax) , levied on all sales of a  business. This tax has been criticized for 
its "cascading" or "pyramiding"  effect, in which an item is taxed more 
than once as it makes its way from  production to final retail sale._[1]_ 
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sales_tax#cite_note-tfstudy-0)  "
If my understanding of what this new Oregon tax entails is correct, it  is 
defined as a SALES TAX per Wiki.
 
A percentage tax on all goods sold, seller pays the tax and is paid by  all 
businesses. 
This results in taxes paid by the manufacturer, [even the suppliers of raw  
materials used by the manufacturer], jobbers, wholesalers, and retailers!   
Just how many businesses handle the product, or parts thereof, each pay  
additional tax on each product thus the consumer will end up paying  more for 
the product.  To think that the cost of this tax will be  completely 
absorbed is a ignorant utopian view.
 
The Oregon government employees unions have succeeded in guaranteeing their 
 unlimited pipeline of money - so long as businesses can survive in that  
repressive environment.  It is what they have been after for a long time.  The
y will be back for more screaming the sky is falling before long and the 
need  will be even higher as they will have raised the bar in just how much 
money they  need to operate.
 
Maybe a petition can get this reversed!  I would suggest that the  
conscientious Oregonians get started on this before the Oregon economy pits  out 
completely and the unions decide they need even more money; can you  say retail 
sales tax or any of the other 'hidden' taxes that can be  levied.
 
The Grouch
 
 
 
In a message dated 1/28/2010 1:00:15 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,  
admin at jeffhowden.com writes:

>  From: +rlo [mailto:rlo42 at yahoo.com]
> 
> Well, aren't  they???????????????????????????????? GeeZe
> people...OPEN YOUR  EYES!

Easy there sparky.  There's no need for yelling or key  smashing as  
exhibited
above.

http://www.evitamins.com/product.asp?pid=1337

In  order to correctly label something a sales tax, it must actually fall
under  the established definition of a sales  tax.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sales_tax

Calling a sea lion a  cat simply because it has the word "lion" in its name
does not, in fact,  make it a member of any of the 41 feline  species.

Jeff


_______________________________________________
GroveNet  mailing  list
GroveNet at rdrop.com
http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet


From g-g-steele at comcast.net  Thu Jan 28 07:58:14 2010
From: g-g-steele at comcast.net (Geri)
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 07:58:14 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] Oregon's first sales tax
References: <933432.77900.qm@web35308.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<A794ADF2-5046-4E73-A070-76AC149194CF@verizon.net>
Message-ID: <0F927CC4ED824038A9E3A5FC6CDA9662@gerianehzkfhvy>

> Calling it a "sales tax" is an attempt to connect the emotional response usually received by sales taxes in Oregon to a different tax.
> 
> David


Yes.


Geri


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "David Morelli" <jo.david at verizon.net>
To: "Forest Grove local interests list" <grovenet at rdrop.com>
Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2010 9:55 PM
Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Oregon's first sales tax


> Jeff,
> 
> No, they are a cost of doing business, and are expensed by the corporation when computing the net income.  
> 
> Sales taxes are collected by the seller, and the taxes are never included in the profit and loss calculations.
> 
> If you are unclear on the difference, talk to your tax consultant.
> 
> To the extent that the price increases to cover the tax, the customer pays.  If the price increase does not cover all of the tax the company pays the tax through lost profits.  And there are lost sales opportunities due to increased prices, that is borne by both the customer and the seller.
> 
> That doesn't change a gross receipts tax into a sales tax.  Or change a minimum income tax into a sales tax.
> 
> Calling it a "sales tax" is an attempt to connect the emotional response usually received by sales taxes in Oregon to a different tax.
> 
> David
>  
> On Jan 27, 2010, at 9:02 PM, +rlo wrote:
> 
>> Well, aren't they???????????????????????????????? GeeZe people...OPEN YOUR EYES!
> ...
>> Sorry, that still doesn't make it a sales tax.  By your logic that'd mean that all taxes they already pay along with any mandatory governmental fees for doing business should also be called a sales tax.
>> 
>> Jeff
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>



From admin at jeffhowden.com  Thu Jan 28 08:36:21 2010
From: admin at jeffhowden.com (Jeff Howden)
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 08:36:21 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] Oregon's first sales tax
In-Reply-To: <849666.60858.qm@web35307.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <00d801ca9fdf$2048dd50$60da97f0$@com>
	<849666.60858.qm@web35307.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <015b01caa038$07056fd0$15104f70$@com>

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> The H E double hockey sticks there isn't reason to
> yell...ALL you yes voters cost a lot of people
> money!!!!!!!! [...]
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

Can you put some valid numbers and facts behind that claim?  Or, is it just
an assumption based on your belief of how these measures work?

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> I'm done...need to get back to work trying to preserve MY job and
> the 40-50 others that I have control of...IN PRIVATE INDUSTRY!
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

You're not the only one trying to run a small business.  I bust my hump
every day to make sure me and the 3 that work with/for me also have a job
too.

Jeff



From admin at jeffhowden.com  Thu Jan 28 08:43:46 2010
From: admin at jeffhowden.com (Jeff Howden)
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 08:43:46 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] Oregon's first sales tax
In-Reply-To: <77ab.670b0ad4.38930842@aol.com>
References: <77ab.670b0ad4.38930842@aol.com>
Message-ID: <017101caa039$100d0830$30271890$@com>

> From: Jamsm at aol.com
> 
> Jeff did you even READ what you linked to as a reference! 
> RLO is correct in calling it a sales tax.

Yes, I read it.  However, as David Morelli pointed out, the decision to call
it a sales tax rather than the more accurate "gross receipts tax" is
intentional so as to get an emotional rise from those that have an aversion
to a retail sales tax (which is what pretty much every average citizen is
going to think of when you say "sales tax").  Calling it solely a sales tax,
especially for the emotional reaction it'll cause, is an intentional
generalization and doesn't serve to add anything to the conversation.  It's
a distraction, most likely used to avoid having to produce concrete examples
of what makes this so bad (in your opinion).

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> [...] To think that the cost of this tax will be completely
> absorbed is a ignorant utopian view.
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

I haven't read anything in here that indicates anybody thinks the costs
won't get past on.  However, what I think you're not addressing is that the
costs that *will* get passed on are minimal.  First, it's a minimum tax
which means that it only kicks in if you're not paying any income tax or the
amount of income tax is less than the minimum defined by this new measure.

So, about those examples....

Jeff



From edavie at verizon.net  Thu Jan 28 10:16:02 2010
From: edavie at verizon.net (Ed Davie)
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 10:16:02 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] Oregon's first sales tax
References: <4ae76.7b0e4d9d.389294f4@aol.com>
Message-ID: <25FE51F2161244C99012FCD0B5600E7E@700x>

Well, at least now we know who the ignorant ones are, even though they lost.
Ed

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

----- Original Message ----- 
From: <Jamsm at aol.com>
To: <grovenet at rdrop.com>
Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2010 11:21 PM
Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Oregon's first sales tax


> The bigger issue that I see is that the people of Oregon got nailed again  
> ('black mailed') by the 'Tax & Spenders'.   ['black   mailed': give us what 
> we want or we will take something away from you  that you consider very 
> important.]
> 
> The 'Tax & Spenders' gave out pay raises and high costing  benefits to all 
> their employees (for which many are probably expendable and  provide no real 
> services or generate any product - paper shufflers) then 'black  mailed' 
> the citizens for more money. 
> 
> This time the 'ignorant ones' complied and gave the 'Tax &  Spenders' what 
> they wanted.  The 'ignorant ones' think the  new taxes will not cost them 
> anything! Thinking: "As long as I am not taxed then  yes I vote for it, 
> because it will not cost me anything. Or tax the rich (I'm  not rich), they can 
> afford it."] In some cases it may not cost them more;  but I bet in the long 
> run, it will impact the cost of all goods sold in  Oregon.
> 
> Since they got away with this time - watch out - as they will use this  
> tactic again to raise taxes.  They know it works!
> 
> The Grouch
> 
> 
> 
> In a message dated 1/27/2010 5:24:07 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,  
> waltw at teleport.com writes:
> 
> Yep,  people who buy a roll of toilet paper would pay the same amount  
> in  taxes. Yet somebody who bought a Lambroghini would pay more taxes   
> than somebody who bought a used Ford... and somebody who repainted   
> his outhouse would pay less taxes than somebody who installed a gold-  
> plated commode. In short, sales taxes land more heavily on people  who  
> buy more... namely, people with more disposable income.  Seems  
> reasonable in that light, doesn't it?
> 
> On Jan 27, 2010,  at 12:38 PM, Marian Cakarnis wrote:
> 
>> I've always been against a  sales tax for two reasons:
>> 1.  I couldn't support the need for a  brand new infrastructure to  
>> collect
>> the tax from all  those consumers.  It is just so incredibly  
>>  inefficient.
>> 2.  It isn't a fair tax.  Someone making  $200,000 a year would pay  
>> the same
>> tax on a roll of  toilet paper, as someone making $20,000 a year.  The
>> percentages  are too far apart and it isn't right.
>>
>> Voting for 67 created  the sales tax without creating the new  
>> infrastructure
>>  and at least filters the tax through the business to the  
>>  consumers.  At the
>> same time ,it might avoid the creation of a  traditionally collected  
>> sales
>> tax, because we can argue  that we already have one and shouldn't  
>> create
>> another  one - or at least that is my hope!
>>
>> Marian
>>
>>  --------------------------------------------------
>> From: "Dick La  Jeunesse" <dicklajeunesse at hotmail.com>
>> Sent: Wednesday, January  27, 2010 12:02 PM
>> To: "Grove Net" <grovenet at rdrop.com>
>>  Subject: [Grovenet] Oregon's first sales tax
>>
>>>
>>>  We interrupt your debate on class warfare and health care  
>>>  entitlements for
>>> a brief announcement.
>>>
>>> The  voters have just approved Oregon's first sales tax!
>>>
>>>  No, Measure 67 was not about the $140 increase in minimum tax   
>>> ($10M), it
>>> was about a sales tax on gross revenues  ($390M)!
>>>
>>>
>>> But, don't worry - you won't have  to pay the tax (directly, yet) -  
>>> you
>>> just voted  to impose the retroactive tax on "wealthy" businesses -  
>>>  whether
>>> or not they make a profit and whether or not they are  still in  
>>> business.
>>>
>>> Ask your  neighbors who work for those "wealthy" local businesses  
>>> how  they
>>> feel about investing in more jobs versus just trying to  survive.   
>>> We have
>>> already lost Times  Litho, Deli in the Grove, Forest Grove  
>>> Cleaners,  the
>>> UPS Store, etc.  to the recession.  Now  what?
>>>
>>> Ask your neighbors who survived the layoffs at  Woodfold how they feel
>>> about the future of their company now that  the State will pile
>>> retroactive taxes on top of their lost  revenues for the past year.
>>>
>>> Our friends in Salem are  only a short step away from extending  
>>> that  sales
>>> tax to the rest of the "wealth" in the State where all of us  get  
>>> to pay it
>>> directly.  The camel's nose  is in the tent.
>>>
>>>
>>> Dick "need one of those  State jobs that still gives raises during
>>> recessions"  LaJeunesse
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>  _________________________________________________________________
>>>  Your E-mail and More On-the-Go. Get Windows Live Hotmail Free.
>>>  http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/196390709/direct/01/
>>>  _______________________________________________
>>> GroveNet mailing  list
>>> GroveNet at rdrop.com
>>>  http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>>
>>
>>  _______________________________________________
>> GroveNet mailing  list
>> GroveNet at rdrop.com
>>  http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet  mailing  list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
> 
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>

From admin at jeffhowden.com  Thu Jan 28 11:02:36 2010
From: admin at jeffhowden.com (Jeff Howden)
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 11:02:36 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] Oregon's first sales tax
In-Reply-To: <c43d.70b42b6b.38932483@aol.com>
References: <c43d.70b42b6b.38932483@aol.com>
Message-ID: <01a101caa04c$7709f3a0$651ddae0$@com>

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> From: Jamsm at aol.com [mailto:Jamsm at aol.com]
> 
> Why don't you show the facts?
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

Sure, but that doesn't exempt you from doing the same.

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> You are the one that claims that the tax is NOT going to hurt
> business and does NOT cause any significant price increase AND
> wanting the statistics [...]
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

A very simple example.  A business in Oregon does $500,000 in gross sales in Oregon.  They have operating expenses to the tune of $498,000 reducing their income tax liability to $2,000.  Based on some quick research [1], the top rate for corporate income tax in Oregon is 7.9% meaning that $2,000 in taxable income results in $158 in Oregon corporate income tax owed.  As this is greater than the now $150 minimum defined by the changes enacted with the passing of Measure 67, then the business pays the $158.

Now, let's say this same business with $500,000 in gross sales in Oregon comes up with even more expenses, say to the tune of $499,000 thereby reducing their income tax liability to $1,000.  This would mean they would, prior to the passing of Measure 67, only owe $79 in Oregon corporate income tax.  However, with the passing of Measure 67, the greater of the two would be the minimum tax of $150.

By the way, $2,000 profit on an original $500,000 in gross sales is a lousy 0.4% profit margin.  The business in this example probably ought to look at reducing some of their operating expenses.

Even in an industry such as grocery stores where the net income is generally very low, usually in the 2-3% range[2], 0.4% should be considered on life support.  Even a grocery store within the average range for the industry wouldn't be subject to the minimum tax on their gross receipts.

Even if the business *were* to be that dysfunctional and had to pay the $150 corporate minimum tax and decided to pass that on in the price of their goods/services, it'd mean an increase of $0.0003 (that's 1/100th of a penny) per dollar.  Or, put differently, a $100 good/service would now cost $100.03.  That's right, a whole 3? increase on a $100 item.

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> [...] (this will let you pick and choose the facts to fit your
> desires). [...]
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

Just because *you* choose to work those angles in a debate does not automatically mean that's how I choose to do it.

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> [...] Shall we revisit this next year and the year after to see what
> a loaf of bread and a few other typical staples) cost you. [...]
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

Sure, why not.  Good luck isolating the fluctuations in price down to just this tax change and properly adjusting for all other factors.

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> [...] Also, how  many small (large) businesses exist today then
> after a year .. after two   years.
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

I think that if this minimum tax affects any businesses (ie, their expenses so drastically reduce their net profit that the minimum tax actually kicks in for them) that they already have much bigger problems that need addressing.

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> [But of course you will want to claim the price increases are a
> result of the de-valued dollar.]
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

A grouch *and* a fortune teller. (hint: you have *no* idea what I will "want" to claim)

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> People understand retail sales taxes.   They typically have a poor
> understanding of what a Gross Receipts Tax implies. [...]
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

I think you have a poor understanding of what a gross receipts tax implies, specifically as it applies to Measure 67 and how the corporate minimum tax works in conjunction with the Oregon corporate income tax.

[1] - http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/topic/52.html
[2] - http://www.fmi.org/docs/facts_figs/Net%20Profit%20Percent%20of%20Sales2008.pdf

Your turn.

Thanks,

Jeff




From rab at jurislex.com  Thu Jan 28 11:03:41 2010
From: rab at jurislex.com (Bob Browning)
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 11:03:41 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] Oregon's first sales tax
In-Reply-To: <280b.5689b511.3892df66@aol.com>
References: <280b.5689b511.3892df66@aol.com>
Message-ID: <4B61DF8D.9090205@jurislex.com>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/attachments/20100128/f44c1f16/attachment.html 

From OleHossTreeFarm at webtv.net  Thu Jan 28 13:34:59 2010
From: OleHossTreeFarm at webtv.net (Ole Hoss)
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 13:34:59 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] A bit of strange news.
Message-ID: <2644-4B620303-2070@storefull-3171.bay.webtv.net>

I have not been using my grovenet @ or any other web @ since before
01/01/10. 
I had intended to get a new computer to use, but things change, and so
back to web Tv.  
Stranger yet ..... On Thursday 01'14/10;
I pulled out 1/2 inch piece of surgical wire that was lett in my
shoulder wound by misstate .. the wound is now healed up ... Went to see
the doc, but he said that he did not use that type of wire, and It had
to OHSU.  But other than some discomfort and stiffness all is well.
Now the next thing that is recommended.. a complete rotator cuff
reversal... But I said NO WAY ... I think I'll put up with the
arthritis, and the discomfort, for with my luck, the next thing that
would go wrong, I'd most likely lose what use I have now.

I hope eveyone's new year resolution are going well, cause mine sure did
not.

~A~:?)




From Jamsm at aol.com  Thu Jan 28 14:01:30 2010
From: Jamsm at aol.com (Jamsm at aol.com)
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 17:01:30 EST
Subject: [Grovenet] Oregon's first sales tax
Message-ID: <15e6d.193f1961.3893633a@aol.com>

Your given example is so flawed I don't know where to  begin.
BUT:
We  were discussing the Gross Receipts Tax  implications.  Keyword is the 
tax is  on the "GROSS receipts" not  after deductions...  In your examples 
you 
did  not even tie in  where the Gross Receipts Taxes were applied.

Again, it  does not  appear that you read very far at the web site you used 
as a basis of   information. You made reference to a very good reputable 
web site that 
has a  lot of data  to look at but you never identified any specifics 
from  that  site.

Here is a very nice stat from the site you kindly   provided:
http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/22661.html

[hopefully,   my format holds together using white space - if not look at 
the above   link.]

STATE BUSINESS TAX  CLIMATE
FY  2010   FY 2009     Change 09  - 10    FY  2008        FY  2007         
FY  2006
State    Score Rank   Score Rank   Score Rank      Score Rank   Score   
Rank   Score Rank
Oregon   5.59      14     6.04       8        -0.44     -6           6.12   
8      6.06     9     6.02     10 

Where a rank of 1 is the worst,  the  higher the number the better the tax 
system is for  business.

So, in the  past five years Oregon has been at the bottom  of the heap rangi
ng between 8th  and 14th rank with 2010 currently  looking the best (at 14) 
it has been in those  5 years. I bet that  number changes very soon to a 
lower 
number with the new tax  law.   Oregon has not been business friendly for 
many years.  

Why  do  you think most companies do not locate to Oregon unless they  are  
given special/huge tax breaks or other large incentives.  Sample:   Intel.

I can give you several sites to read; but I don't know why I   should 
bother. You have voted for the tax and will learn the hard way. I  don't  
live 
there, so I don't care about this other than this tax will  be  very 
harmful to  
a  relative that still operates a small  business in  Oregon that is 
currently slowly failing - not due to his  business sense  other than I  
told him to 
sell the business 15  years ago when the Internet  went public and he 
thought 
the business  would last until he retired - yes, his  business is being 
destroyed by  the Internet.  He now works two jobs  to care for his family. 
  You 
are the one that has voted for this and  live there. So you get to  see  
what 
happens to your economy first  hand.  I have no  need to prove to you the 
errors of your  thinking.

Many of your  other comments in regards to  some of my  statements are off 
base  - as I  have been watching this BB for many years -  my assumptions  
about you were based on what you and some of your liberal friends  have  
done on 
this board previously.  You succeeded in doing extensions  of  some of my 
so 
called predictions anyway with your  post,  below. Sorry, you  probably 
don't 
understand what I refer to and I am  not going to drop to your  level of 
tit-for-tat discussions. I am also  sorry that I did not do more  
'predictions' 
of what you would do.   Many of  your line-by-line  responses were actually 
very  predictable and on par with your typical so called  discussions.

To  improve Oregon they need to dump PERS and break  up the Public Unions - 
 
you are at their mercy {unless you are a beneficiary  of them; which,  in 
that case you want to keep them.}
Not every one  can be employed  by the government - someone  has  to pay 
the 
taxes.
The  Liberals will eventually destroy the middle class if  they are let to  
run rampant and have their way!
But they bicker amongst themselves so  much they will hopefully self  
destruct!

END of my responses to  you on this subject - I have no desire to teach  
you.
The  Grouch

In a message dated 1/28/2010 2:02:56 P.M. Eastern  Standard  Time, 
admin at jeffhowden.com   writes:
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
>   From: Jamsm at aol.com [mailto:Jamsm at aol.com]
> 
> Why don't you  show  the   facts?
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

Sure,   but that doesn't exempt you from doing the   same.

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
>   You are the one that claims that the tax is NOT going to hurt
>  business  and does NOT cause any significant price increase AND
>  wanting the  statistics   [...]
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

A   very simple example.  A business in Oregon does $500,000 in gross sales 
 
in  Oregon.  They have operating expenses to the tune of $498,000  reducing 
 
their income tax liability to $2,000.  Based on some  quick research [1],  
the top rate for corporate income tax in Oregon is  7.9% meaning that 
$2,000 in 
taxable income results in $158 in Oregon  corporate income tax owed.  As  
this is greater than the now $150  minimum defined by the changes enacted 
with 
the passing of Measure 67, then  the business pays the $158.

Now, let's  say this same business with  $500,000 in gross sales in Oregon 
comes up with even  more expenses,  say to the tune of $499,000 thereby 
reducing their income tax   liability to $1,000.  This would mean they 
would, prior 
to the passing  of  Measure 67, only owe $79 in Oregon corporate income 
tax. 
However,  with the  passing of Measure 67, the greater of the two would be 
the  minimum tax of  $150.

By the way, $2,000 profit on an original  $500,000 in gross sales is  a l
ousy 0.4% profit margin.  The  business in this example probably ought to  
look 
at reducing some of  their operating expenses.

Even in an industry  such as grocery  stores where the net income is 
generally very low, usually in  the 2-3%  range[2], 0.4% should be 
considered on 
life support.  Even a   grocery store within the average range for the 
industry 
wouldn't be subject  to  the minimum tax on their gross receipts.

Even if the business  *were* to  be that dysfunctional and had to pay the 
$150 corporate  minimum tax and decided  to pass that on in the price of 
their  
goods/services, it'd mean an increase of  $0.0003 (that's 1/100th of a  
penny) per dollar.  Or, put differently, a  $100 good/service  would now 
cost 
$100.03.  That's right, a whole 3?  increase on a  $100   item.

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
>   [...] (this will let you pick and choose the facts to fit your
>  desires).   [...]
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

Just   because *you* choose to work those angles in a debate does not  
automatically  mean that's how I choose to do   it.

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
>   [...] Shall we revisit this next year and the year after to see what
>  a  loaf of bread and a few other typical staples) cost you.   [...]
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

Sure,   why not.  Good luck isolating the fluctuations in price down to 
just  
this  tax change and properly adjusting for all other   factors.

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
>   [...] Also, how  many small (large) businesses exist today  then
>  after a year .. after two     years.
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

I   think that if this minimum tax affects any businesses (ie, their 
expenses  so  drastically reduce their net profit that the minimum tax 
actually  
kicks in for  them) that they already have much bigger problems that  need  
 
addressing.

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
>   [But of course you will want to claim the price increases are a
>  result  of the de-valued   dollar.]
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

A   grouch *and* a fortune teller. (hint: you have *no* idea what I will 
"want"  to   claim)

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
>   People understand retail sales taxes.   They typically have a   poor
> understanding of what a Gross Receipts Tax implies.   [...]
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

I   think you have a poor understanding of what a gross receipts tax  
implies,  specifically as it applies to Measure 67 and how the  corporate 
minimum 
tax works  in conjunction with the Oregon corporate  income tax.

[1] -   http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/topic/52.html
[2] -   
http://www.fmi.org/docs/facts_figs/Net%20Profit%20Percent%20of%20Sales2008.p
df

Your   turn.

Thanks,

Jeff

From Jamsm at aol.com  Thu Jan 28 14:15:51 2010
From: Jamsm at aol.com (Jamsm at aol.com)
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 17:15:51 EST
Subject: [Grovenet] Oregon's first sales tax
Message-ID: <1661a.3ffbd13f.38936697@aol.com>

Hopefully my formatting holds this time

Your given example is so  flawed (over simplified?) I don't know where to   
begin.
BUT:
We  were discussing the Gross Receipts Tax   implications.  Keyword is the 
tax is  on the "GROSS receipts"  not  after deductions...  In your examples 
you did  not even  tie in  where the Gross Receipts Taxes were applied.

Again, it   does not  appear that you read very far at the web site you 
used 
as a  basis of   information. You made reference to a very good reputable  
web site that has a  lot of data  to look at but you never  identified any 
specifics 
from  that  site.

Here is a very  nice stat from the site you kindly    provided:
http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/22661.html

[hopefully,    my format holds together using underscores - if not look at 
the  above   link.]  It it breaks up this time, then a server is  
reformatting the text while reducing the line length and dropping white  space.

STATE BUSINESS TAX   CLIMATE
________FY_2010_____FY_2009______Change_09_  
-_10____FY_2008______FY_2007______FY_2006
State___Score_Rank___Score_Rank___Score_Rank________Score_Rank___Score_Rank_
__Score_Rank
Oregon__5.59__14_____6.04___8______-0.44_-6___________6.12___8______6.06___9
______6.02__10  

Where a rank of 1 is the worst,  the  higher the number the  better the tax 
system is for  business.

So, in the  past  five years Oregon has been at the bottom  of the heap 
rangi
ng between  8th  and 14th rank with 2010 currently  looking the best (at 
14)  
it has been in those  5 years. I bet that  number changes very  soon to a 
lower 
number with the new tax  law.   Oregon  has not been business friendly for 
many years.  

Why   do  you think most companies do not locate to Oregon unless they   
are  
given special/huge tax breaks or other large incentives.   Sample:   Intel.

I can give you several sites to read; but I  don't know why I   should 
bother. You have voted for the tax and  will learn the hard way. I  don't  
live 
there, so I don't care  about this other than this tax will  be  very 
harmful to   
a  relative that still operates a small  business in  Oregon  that is 
currently slowly failing - not due to his  business sense   other than I  
told him to 
sell the business 15  years ago when  the Internet  went public and he 
thought 
the business  would  last until he retired - yes, his  business is being 
destroyed by   the Internet.  He now works two jobs  to care for his 
family.  
You 
are the one that has voted for this and  live there. So  you get to  see  
what 
happens to your economy first   hand.  I have no  need to prove to you the 
errors of your   thinking.

Many of your  other comments in regards to  some of  my  statements are off 
base  - as I  have been watching this  BB for many years -  my assumptions  
about you were based on what  you and some of your liberal friends  have  
done on 
this board  previously.  You succeeded in doing extensions  of  some of my  
so 
called predictions anyway with your  post,  below. Sorry,  you  probably 
don't 
understand what I refer to and I am  not  going to drop to your  level of 
tit-for-tat discussions. I am  also  sorry that I did not do more  
'predictions' 
of what you  would do.   Many of  your line-by-line  responses were  
actually 
very  predictable and on par with your typical so called   discussions.

To  improve Oregon they need to dump PERS and  break  up the Public Unions 
- 

you are at their mercy {unless you  are a beneficiary  of them; which,  in 
that case you want to keep  them.}
Not every one  can be employed  by the government -  someone  has  to pay 
the 
taxes.
The  Liberals will  eventually destroy the middle class if  they are let to 
 
run  rampant and have their way!
But they bicker amongst themselves so  much  they will hopefully self  
destruct!

END of my responses to   you on this subject - I have no desire to teach  
you.
The   Grouch

In a message dated 1/28/2010 2:02:56 P.M. Eastern   Standard  Time, 
admin at jeffhowden.com    writes:
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
>    From: Jamsm at aol.com [mailto:Jamsm at aol.com]
> 
> Why don't you   show  the    facts?
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

Sure,    but that doesn't exempt you from doing the    same.

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
>    You are the one that claims that the tax is NOT going to hurt
>   business  and does NOT cause any significant price increase  AND
>  wanting the  statistics    [...]
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

A    very simple example.  A business in Oregon does $500,000 in gross 
sales  

in  Oregon.  They have operating expenses to the tune of  $498,000  
reducing 

their income tax liability to $2,000.   Based on some  quick research [1],  
the top rate for corporate  income tax in Oregon is  7.9% meaning that 
$2,000 in 
taxable income  results in $158 in Oregon  corporate income tax owed.  As   
this is greater than the now $150  minimum defined by the changes  enacted 
with 
the passing of Measure 67, then  the business pays the  $158.

Now, let's  say this same business with  $500,000 in  gross sales in Oregon 
comes up with even  more expenses,  say to  the tune of $499,000 thereby 
reducing their income tax   liability  to $1,000.  This would mean they 
would, prior 
to the passing   of  Measure 67, only owe $79 in Oregon corporate income 
tax.  
However,  with the  passing of Measure 67, the greater of the two  would be 
the  minimum tax of  $150.

By the way, $2,000  profit on an original  $500,000 in gross sales is  a l
ousy 0.4%  profit margin.  The  business in this example probably ought to  
 
look 
at reducing some of  their operating expenses.

Even in  an industry  such as grocery  stores where the net income is  
generally very low, usually in  the 2-3%  range[2], 0.4% should be  
considered on 
life support.  Even a   grocery store  within the average range for the 
industry 
wouldn't be subject   to  the minimum tax on their gross receipts.

Even if the  business  *were* to  be that dysfunctional and had to pay the 
$150  corporate  minimum tax and decided  to pass that on in the price of  
their  
goods/services, it'd mean an increase of  $0.0003  (that's 1/100th of a  
penny) per dollar.  Or, put differently,  a  $100 good/service  would now 
cost 
$100.03.  That's  right, a whole 3?  increase on a  $100    item.

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
>    [...] (this will let you pick and choose the facts to fit your
>   desires).    [...]
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

Just    because *you* choose to work those angles in a debate does not   
automatically  mean that's how I choose to do    it.

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
>    [...] Shall we revisit this next year and the year after to see  what
>  a  loaf of bread and a few other typical staples) cost  you.    [...]
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

Sure,    why not.  Good luck isolating the fluctuations in price down to  
just  
this  tax change and properly adjusting for all  other    factors.

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
>    [...] Also, how  many small (large) businesses exist today   then
>  after a year .. after two      years.
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

I    think that if this minimum tax affects any businesses (ie, their  
expenses  so  drastically reduce their net profit that the minimum  tax 
actually  
kicks in for  them) that they already have much  bigger problems that  need 
  

addressing.

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
>    [But of course you will want to claim the price increases are a
>   result  of the de-valued    dollar.]
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

A    grouch *and* a fortune teller. (hint: you have *no* idea what I will  
"want"  to    claim)

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
>    People understand retail sales taxes.   They typically have  a   poor
> understanding of what a Gross Receipts Tax  implies.    [...]
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

I    think you have a poor understanding of what a gross receipts tax   
implies,  specifically as it applies to Measure 67 and how the   corporate 
minimum 
tax works  in conjunction with the Oregon  corporate  income tax.

[1] -    http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/topic/52.html
[2] -    
http://www.fmi.org/docs/facts_figs/Net%20Profit%20Percent%20of%20Sales2008.p
df

Your    turn.

Thanks,

Jeff
_______________________________________________
GroveNet  mailing  list
GroveNet at rdrop.com
http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
 



From Jamsm at aol.com  Thu Jan 28 14:19:14 2010
From: Jamsm at aol.com (Jamsm at aol.com)
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 17:19:14 EST
Subject: [Grovenet] Oregon's first sales tax
Message-ID: <167e1.7e41f37a.38936762@aol.com>

If you read my previous posts, over the years,  you would know where I 
live. Oh, but I rarely post.
Enquiring minds need to  learn how to use the computer. 

As for the tax ranking you provided -  that sounds like a number using 
select data input that gives a number  representing the results you desire rave 
about (A typical liberal approach); but  it is also very likely based on 
sound numbers but looking at a small section of  the overall tax picture.  See 
other email for numbers that show Oregon at  the bottom of the STATE 
BUSINESS TAX  CLIMATE

Again, END of this  discussion for me.

Flame me all you want - lol - as I do not care about  Oregon anymore.  I 
only watch this feed to see what you liberal leaning  people are thinking.   I 
 have no desire to debate with  you.

The Grouch

In a message dated 1/28/2010 2:03:54 P.M. Eastern  Standard Time, 
rab at jurislex.com writes:
So, Mr. or Ms. Grouch, where do you  live (no, I am not going to show up on 
your doorstep) and how does government  where you live pay for services 
offered to you?? Or do you reject the services  and refuse to use the roads, 
schools, hospitals, water, sewer,  etc?

Enquiring minds would like to know. Especially given the fact that  it 
appears that the new taxes will move Oregon from third lowest tax state in  the 
nation to fifth lowest, a 66 percent increase if we use R-type  math!!

bob

PS: lo - If you want to unsubscribe, please go to this  link -  
http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
On  1/28/2010 4:39 AM, Jamsm at aol.com wrote: 
Sorry, I did not vote nor am I able  to vote in Oregon anymore - I do not  
live there.
I lived in Oregon  long enough to see the politics in Oregon use  many 
tactics to get what  they wanted.

I call the voters ignorant, in this case, due to the  fact the tactic is 
old 
- see my other recent posts.
Many of the  voters are 'ignorant' to the tactic.
Many voters forget and there are many  other voters in Oregon that have  
not 
seen the tricks that they  use.

The  Grouch



_______________________________________________
GroveNet  mailing  list
GroveNet at rdrop.com
http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet  



From edavie at verizon.net  Thu Jan 28 14:39:45 2010
From: edavie at verizon.net (Ed Davie)
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 14:39:45 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] A bit of strange news.
References: <2644-4B620303-2070@storefull-3171.bay.webtv.net>
Message-ID: <517D68DBE3FF415885154A2F0F37A926@700x>

Hi Alan,
Welcome back!
Ed

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Ole Hoss" <OleHossTreeFarm at webtv.net>
To: <grovenet at rdrop.com>
Sent: Thursday, January 28, 2010 1:34 PM
Subject: [Grovenet] A bit of strange news.


I have not been using my grovenet @ or any other web @ since before
01/01/10. 
I had intended to get a new computer to use, but things change, and so
back to web Tv.  
Stranger yet ..... On Thursday 01'14/10;
I pulled out 1/2 inch piece of surgical wire that was lett in my
shoulder wound by misstate .. the wound is now healed up ... Went to see
the doc, but he said that he did not use that type of wire, and It had
to OHSU.  But other than some discomfort and stiffness all is well.
Now the next thing that is recommended.. a complete rotator cuff
reversal... But I said NO WAY ... I think I'll put up with the
arthritis, and the discomfort, for with my luck, the next thing that
would go wrong, I'd most likely lose what use I have now.

I hope eveyone's new year resolution are going well, cause mine sure did
not.

~A~:<)



_______________________________________________
GroveNet mailing list
GroveNet at rdrop.com
http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet

From phoenixacup at gmail.com  Thu Jan 28 15:24:51 2010
From: phoenixacup at gmail.com (Jane Burch-Pesses)
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 15:24:51 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] A bit of strange news.
In-Reply-To: <2644-4B620303-2070@storefull-3171.bay.webtv.net>
References: <2644-4B620303-2070@storefull-3171.bay.webtv.net>
Message-ID: <d6eeab3d1001281524i76aa11fdt9f7a215d8e14dbfc@mail.gmail.com>

Well, the Year of the Tiger starts on Feb. 14 (Valentine's Day).  If your
new year resolutions did not go well, you could try again on 2/14.

Jane B-P

PS. If you would like a lucky Chinese New Year postcard for your door email
me your address (off net, obviously).

Jane

On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 1:34 PM, Ole Hoss <OleHossTreeFarm at webtv.net> wrote:

> I have not been using my grovenet @ or any other web @ since before
> 01/01/10.
> I had intended to get a new computer to use, but things change, and so
> back to web Tv.
> Stranger yet ..... On Thursday 01'14/10;
> I pulled out 1/2 inch piece of surgical wire that was lett in my
> shoulder wound by misstate .. the wound is now healed up ... Went to see
> the doc, but he said that he did not use that type of wire, and It had
> to OHSU.  But other than some discomfort and stiffness all is well.
> Now the next thing that is recommended.. a complete rotator cuff
> reversal... But I said NO WAY ... I think I'll put up with the
> arthritis, and the discomfort, for with my luck, the next thing that
> would go wrong, I'd most likely lose what use I have now.
>
> I hope eveyone's new year resolution are going well, cause mine sure did
> not.
>
> ~A~:?)
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>



-- 
Phoenix Acupuncture and Chinese Medicine
Home of the TAO (Team Against Obesity)
www.phoenix-acupuncture.net

From admin at jeffhowden.com  Thu Jan 28 15:39:16 2010
From: admin at jeffhowden.com (Jeff Howden)
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 15:39:16 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] Oregon's first sales tax
In-Reply-To: <1661a.3ffbd13f.38936697@aol.com>
References: <1661a.3ffbd13f.38936697@aol.com>
Message-ID: <020201caa073$1b653060$522f9120$@com>

> From: Jamsm at aol.com
> 
> Your given example is so flawed (over simplified?) I don't
> know where to begin.

So, rather than respond directly to my example or produce your own example
that's not flawed, you're simply going to say it's flawed?

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> We were discussing the Gross Receipts Tax implications.  Keyword is
> the tax is  on the "GROSS receipts" not after deductions...
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

You *clearly* did not read my example very well.  The Gross Receipts Tax
implication was very directly addressed.  I specifically used the $500,000
figure for Gross Sales in Oregon (worded as such intentionally to match the
language of the measure) to align it with a specific minimum tax level of
$150.

Go back and read it again if you doubt.

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> [snip of poorly formatted data]
>
> Where a rank of 1 is the worst, the higher the number the better
> the tax system is for business.
> 
> So, in the past five years Oregon has been at the bottom of the
> heap ranging between 8th and 14th rank with 2010 currently looking
> the best (at 14) it has been in those 5 years. I bet that number
> changes very soon to a lower number with the new tax law.
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

So, since you couldn't be bothered to actually link to the document you were
quoting from, I'll go ahead and do the favor for everyone else that may be
following along at home:

http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/bp59.pdf

I think you obviously didn't understand how that data was portrayed.  I
wanted to badly to think that you were on to something that I mistook the
explanation in your favor as well.  Then, when rereading the data, I
suddenly realized why it wasn't making sense.  A *SCORE* of 1 is the worst,
not a rank of 1.  In reality, Oregon is ranked #14 for *favorable* business
tax climate.  Look at figure #1 to see what I mean.  The 10 best are labeled
in white and ranked from #1 to #10.  Oregon has a #14 in it.  Looking at the
data and the scoring system, Oregon isn't far off the mark to be back in the
top 10.  I agree the number will likely change with this recent change, but
I doubt it'll be anything significant.

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> [...] Oregon has not been business friendly for many years. [...]
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

Epic fail.  Oregon has been in the top 10 for business tax climate since
2006 (perhaps longer) until this last year.

Further, Forbes Magazine (maybe you've heard of them) categorically
disagrees with your idea that Oregon is not business friendly. It ranks
Oregon (in an article published in September 2009) number 10.

http://www.forbes.com/2009/09/23/best-states-for-business-beltway-best-state
s_slide_11.html

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> [...] I don't live there, so I don't care about this [...]
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

And therein lies the issue with this debate.  You don't care so you
apparently can't be bothered to actually check your facts.

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> [...] other than this tax will be very harmful to a relative that
> still operates a small business in Oregon that is currently slowly
> failing - not due to his business sense other than I told him to
> sell the business 15 years ago when the Internet went public and
> he thought the business would last until he retired - yes, his
> business is being destroyed by the Internet.  He now works two
> jobs to care for his family. [...]
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

The Internet does not kill businesses.  If it is affecting his and he can't
see how to make the Internet work for his business rather than against it,
then he very clearly lacks business sense.  Further, if he's working two
jobs to care for his family then it's apparent his focus is not adequately
on his business and that's the reason for it failing.  Instead of blaming
the Internet for his woes, he ought to be taking responsibility for the
situation and doing something about it.  It's easier to play the blame game
though, isn't it?

I find it laughable that you predicted 15 years ago that the Internet would
somehow negatively impact his business.  15 years ago Amazon.com was
launched and eBay was founded in its original form known as AuctionWeb.  In
1995, the Internet was young and *no one* really knew what it's potential
was.  It was wild, untested, unknown, and uncharted.  Heck, Google wasn't
even founded until 1998.

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> Many of your other comments in regards to some of my statements are
> off base - as I have been watching this BB for many years - my
> assumptions about you were based on what you and some of your
> liberal friends have done on this board previously. [...]
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

I don't know who you're considering my friends, but I don't personally know
anyone else on this email discussion list (it's not a BB) and certainly
haven't posted enough for you to make *any* sort of reasonable assumptions
about me.  I think you need to put that brush down; the strokes are far too
broad and carry with them absolutely no depth or detail.

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> To improve Oregon they need to dump PERS and break up the Public
> Unions
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

Agreed.  I think the benefits for state employees (as with all levels of
government) are too good.  I'm also not a fan of unions.  They served their
purpose early on, but now they do more harm than good (for both businesses
*and* employees).

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> Not everyone can be employed by the government - someone has to pay
> the taxes.
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

Um, even if you're employed by the government, you still pay taxes.

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> END of my responses to you on this subject - I have no desire to
> teach you.
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

No worries.  I'm the one that chooses who to learn from, not the other way
around.  I think I'll stick with learning from those that don't require me
to sift through the insults, arrogance, and gross generalizations.  It's
served me quite well so far.

Good day,

Jeff



From g-g-steele at comcast.net  Thu Jan 28 15:42:32 2010
From: g-g-steele at comcast.net (Geri)
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 15:42:32 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] A bit of strange news.
References: <2644-4B620303-2070@storefull-3171.bay.webtv.net>
	<d6eeab3d1001281524i76aa11fdt9f7a215d8e14dbfc@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <83B06FEEE9584B6A881FEF61804B1599@gerianehzkfhvy>

Jane, thank you for the reminder of another new year coming up.
Good for those of us who already need to start over? :-)

Alan, that is a strange one, the mystery surgical wire!  It is good
to hear you are mostly well.


Geri

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jane Burch-Pesses" <phoenixacup at gmail.com>
To: "Forest Grove local interests list" <grovenet at rdrop.com>
Sent: Thursday, January 28, 2010 3:24 PM
Subject: Re: [Grovenet] A bit of strange news.


> Well, the Year of the Tiger starts on Feb. 14 (Valentine's Day).  If your
> new year resolutions did not go well, you could try again on 2/14.
> 
> Jane B-P
> 
> PS. If you would like a lucky Chinese New Year postcard for your door email
> me your address (off net, obviously).
> 
> Jane
> 
> On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 1:34 PM, Ole Hoss <OleHossTreeFarm at webtv.net> wrote:
> 
>> I have not been using my grovenet @ or any other web @ since before
>> 01/01/10.
>> I had intended to get a new computer to use, but things change, and so
>> back to web Tv.
>> Stranger yet ..... On Thursday 01'14/10;
>> I pulled out 1/2 inch piece of surgical wire that was lett in my
>> shoulder wound by misstate .. the wound is now healed up ... Went to see
>> the doc, but he said that he did not use that type of wire, and It had
>> to OHSU.  But other than some discomfort and stiffness all is well.
>> Now the next thing that is recommended.. a complete rotator cuff
>> reversal... But I said NO WAY ... I think I'll put up with the
>> arthritis, and the discomfort, for with my luck, the next thing that
>> would go wrong, I'd most likely lose what use I have now.
>>
>> I hope eveyone's new year resolution are going well, cause mine sure did
>> not.
>>
>> ~A~:?)
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> GroveNet mailing list
>> GroveNet at rdrop.com
>> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>>
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Phoenix Acupuncture and Chinese Medicine
> Home of the TAO (Team Against Obesity)
> www.phoenix-acupuncture.net
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>



From chuck at grovenet.net  Thu Jan 28 16:34:41 2010
From: chuck at grovenet.net (chuck)
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 16:34:41 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] Oregon's first sales tax
In-Reply-To: <020201caa073$1b653060$522f9120$@com>
References: <1661a.3ffbd13f.38936697@aol.com>
	<020201caa073$1b653060$522f9120$@com>
Message-ID: <4B622D21.4090309@grovenet.net>


>> <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
>> [...] other than this tax will be very harmful to a relative that
>> still operates a small business in Oregon that is currently slowly
>> failing - not due to his business sense other than I told him to
>> sell the business 15 years ago when the Internet went public and
>> he thought the business would last until he retired - yes, his
>> business is being destroyed by the Internet.  He now works two
>> jobs to care for his family. [...]
>> <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
>>     
>
> The Internet does not kill businesses.  If it is affecting his and he can't
> see how to make the Internet work for his business rather than against it,
> then he very clearly lacks business sense.  Further, if he's working two
> jobs to care for his family then it's apparent his focus is not adequately
> on his business and that's the reason for it failing.  Instead of blaming
> the Internet for his woes, he ought to be taking responsibility for the
> situation and doing something about it.  It's easier to play the blame game
> though, isn't it?
>
>   
Really. 

I can think of quite a few. 

Record stores are dead - thanks to iTunes, Napster, and P2P File Sharing 
Newspapers are dying thanks to online News and blogs
Magazines are dying off thanks to ezines and blogs
Video stores are dying off thanks to Netflix, Hulu, and other online 
video channels
Travel Agencies are dying thanks to Expedia, Travelocity, and other 
online booking companies
More close to home, we could ask The UPS Store how the internet affected 
them, if they were still open.  We could ask Your Travel Place, or maybe 
Hortons.  Or any one of the multiple books stores that have come and 
gone.  The big brick and mortar books stores will be next thanks to 
Amazon and eReaders, Kindle, etc.

Dead businesses, killed by the Internet. 

And I find this comment very insulting.

Further, if he's working two jobs to care for his family then it's apparent his focus is not adequately on his business and that's the reason for it failing.  Instead of blaming the Internet for his woes, he ought to be taking responsibility for the situation and doing something about it

So he should drop the other job, and focus entirely on reviving his 
business?  It's his fault it's failing because he's too busy trying to 
provide food for his family?   Have you ever had to work 2 jobs just to 
make ends meet?  Believe me, it's not fun.  Don't be too quick to judge, 
you may find yourself in a similar position one day. 


From Jamsm at aol.com  Thu Jan 28 16:39:26 2010
From: Jamsm at aol.com (Jamsm at aol.com)
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 19:39:26 EST
Subject: [Grovenet] Oregon's first sales tax
Message-ID: <1b1b5.5070e0c1.3893883e@aol.com>

Thank you,  he is in one of the businesses you listed.
 
The Grouch
 
 
In a message dated 1/28/2010 7:35:08 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,  
chuck at grovenet.net writes:


>>  <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
>>  [...] other than this tax will be very harmful to a relative that
>>  still operates a small business in Oregon that is currently slowly
>>  failing - not due to his business sense other than I told him to
>>  sell the business 15 years ago when the Internet went public and
>>  he thought the business would last until he retired - yes, his
>>  business is being destroyed by the Internet.  He now works  two
>> jobs to care for his family. [...]
>>  <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
>>   
>
> The Internet does not kill businesses.  If  it is affecting his and he 
can't
> see how to make the Internet work for  his business rather than against 
it,
> then he very clearly lacks  business sense.  Further, if he's working two
> jobs to care for  his family then it's apparent his focus is not 
adequately
> on his  business and that's the reason for it failing.  Instead of  
blaming
> the Internet for his woes, he ought to be taking  responsibility for the
> situation and doing something about it.   It's easier to play the blame 
game
> though, isn't  it?
>
>   
Really. 

I can think of quite a  few. 

Record stores are dead - thanks to iTunes, Napster, and P2P File  Sharing 
Newspapers are dying thanks to online News and blogs
Magazines  are dying off thanks to ezines and blogs
Video stores are dying off thanks  to Netflix, Hulu, and other online 
video channels
Travel Agencies are  dying thanks to Expedia, Travelocity, and other 
online booking  companies
More close to home, we could ask The UPS Store how the internet  affected 
them, if they were still open.  We could ask Your Travel  Place, or maybe 
Hortons.  Or any one of the multiple books stores  that have come and 
gone.  The big brick and mortar books stores will  be next thanks to 
Amazon and eReaders, Kindle, etc.

Dead  businesses, killed by the Internet. 

And I find this comment very  insulting.

Further, if he's working two jobs to care for his family  then it's 
apparent his focus is not adequately on his business and that's the  reason for it 
failing.  Instead of blaming the Internet for his woes, he  ought to be 
taking responsibility for the situation and doing something about  it

So he should drop the other job, and focus entirely on reviving his  
business?  It's his fault it's failing because he's too busy trying  to 
provide food for his family?   Have you ever had to work 2  jobs just to 
make ends meet?  Believe me, it's not fun.  Don't  be too quick to judge, 
you may find yourself in a similar position one  day. 

_______________________________________________
GroveNet  mailing  list
GroveNet at rdrop.com
http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet


From admin at jeffhowden.com  Thu Jan 28 17:02:56 2010
From: admin at jeffhowden.com (Jeff Howden)
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 17:02:56 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] Oregon's first sales tax
In-Reply-To: <4B622D21.4090309@grovenet.net>
References: <1661a.3ffbd13f.38936697@aol.com>
	<020201caa073$1b653060$522f9120$@com>
	<4B622D21.4090309@grovenet.net>
Message-ID: <020a01caa07e$cbcb4420$6361cc60$@com>

Chuck,

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> From: chuck [mailto:chuck at grovenet.net]
> 
> Record stores are dead - thanks to iTunes, Napster, and P2P File
> Sharing
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

Record stores that have come up with new ways to present themselves,
attacking niche markets that the companies you mentioned aren't covering,
etc. are thriving.  They focus on things that make them better than any of
those sites online.  They focus on vintage, not-oft-carried labels, etc.

"Record stores" aren't failing because of the Internet.  If anything they're
failing because the way we store and listen to music is changing.  That may
well be tangentially related to the Internet, but is not directly caused by
the Internet.

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> Newspapers are dying thanks to online News and blogs
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

Those that are stuck using antiquated revenue models, yes.  Newspapers died
a little with the rise of radio and again with the rise of TV.  News is
still a hot commodity though.  Again, the Internet itself is not responsible
for their death.  The lack of moving with the changing times is killing
them.

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> Magazines are dying off thanks to ezines and blogs
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

Only those that aren't finding ways to *use* the Internet; think Salon,
Wired, etc.

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> Video stores are dying off thanks to Netflix, Hulu, and other online
> video channels
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

And again, those that have chosen to approach it with new eyes are thriving,
think vintage, rare, niche genre titles.

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> More close to home, we could ask The UPS Store how the internet
> affected them, if they were still open.
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

We could ask, but I find it hard to fathom how the Internet had anything to
do with the demise of their business.

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> We could ask Your Travel Place, or maybe Hortons. 
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

While you're at it -- ask them what they're doing to leverage the Internet.

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> Or any one of the multiple books stores that have come and
> gone.  The big brick and mortar books stores will be next thanks to
> Amazon and eReaders, Kindle, etc.
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

The big brick and mortar book stores that are adjusting to changes in their
industry are already moving forward with technology plays of their own.
They won't die unless they choose to not evolve.

In all of your examples you cite the supposed death of something because of
the Internet.  What you're not addressing however, is the birth of something
too.  If it weren't for these companies doing things to take advantage of
what the Internet has to offer, they wouldn't be thriving like they are.

Again, the Internet is a communications medium.  In and of itself, it cannot
kill anything.  Businesses that choose to utilize it can and do force less
savvy businesses out of the marketplace.  The Internet is *not* what's doing
it though. 

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> And I find this comment very insulting.
> 
> Further, if he's working two jobs to care for his family then it's
> apparent his focus is not adequately on his business and that's the
> reason for it failing.  Instead of blaming the Internet for his woes,
> he ought to be taking responsibility for the situation and doing
> something about it
> 
> So he should drop the other job, and focus entirely on reviving his
> business?  It's his fault it's failing because he's too busy trying
> to provide food for his family?   Have you ever had to work 2 jobs
> just to make ends meet?  Believe me, it's not fun.  Don't be too
> quick to judge, you may find yourself in a similar position one day.
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

If the other job is keeping him from doing what he needs to do to make his
business successful, then yes, he should drop it.  Or, he should see that
the business isn't viable and either sell it or shutter it.  However,
limping along, working two jobs, splitting focus, and then the whole time
complaining that it's someone else's fault isn't doing anybody any good.

I've been in situations where I've had to work two jobs to make ends meet.
You're right, it's not fun.  Doing so took a toll on me physically and
mentally.  It took a toll on my relationships.  It took an enormous toll on
what I was able to put energy wise into either job.  I smartened up.  I've
been more recently in situations where I might have been advised to take on
a second job, but it simply wouldn't benefit anyone in the long-term.  Sure,
it'd put more money in the wallet today, but ultimately it'd be more costly
in the long run than if I'd simply put more focus on the one job.

For the record, I'm not judging anyone for taking a second job.  That's a
decision everyone has to make for themselves.  What I take issue with is
doing so and then complaining that it's all someone/something else's fault
it's not working.  Blaming doesn't get the job done.

Jeff



From NoSpam03 at comcast.net  Thu Jan 28 17:04:02 2010
From: NoSpam03 at comcast.net (Steven)
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 17:04:02 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] Oregon's first sales tax
In-Reply-To: <6C776F94-5C3F-477A-8C04-E09320686189@teleport.com>
References: <4ae76.7b0e4d9d.389294f4@aol.com>
	<6C776F94-5C3F-477A-8C04-E09320686189@teleport.com>
Message-ID: <004001caa07e$f7c7a460$e756ed20$@net>

How about not giving cost of living increases to the legislature.
Maybe if Chuck R wants to help, he could stay at his job. He now will get a
retirement package from the legislature, then, regrettably, he will get a
senate pay. Meanwhile his wife gets his old paycheck.
Do you really think Chuck is worth that much?

-----Original Message-----
From: grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com [mailto:grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com] On
Behalf Of Walt Wentz
Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2010 11:46 PM
To: Forest Grove local interests list
Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Oregon's first sales tax

Or, to rephrase:
"Give us what we need to pay for the same level of services, or we  
can't provide that level anymore."
As for all the "probably expendable" state employees, why not get  
specific? Which state employees or agencies would you like to see  
eliminated, and what benefits or disadvantages would derive from  
their elimination? Give us some specifics, and a cost-benefit  
rundown, on each, OK? The DMV, perhaps? Medicaid? The Public Schools?  
Fish and Game?  Hey, yeah, let's just keep chopping out all them  
"superfluous" state employees and agencies, and soon we won't be  
paying ANY taxes at all! And will be back to living in the Wild West  
days, medicating our own ailments with dandelion root and trading  
moldy beaver skins for 



From rab at jurislex.com  Thu Jan 28 17:13:07 2010
From: rab at jurislex.com (Bob Browning)
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 17:13:07 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] Oregon's first sales tax
In-Reply-To: <167e1.7e41f37a.38936762@aol.com>
References: <167e1.7e41f37a.38936762@aol.com>
Message-ID: <4B623623.9040807@jurislex.com>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/attachments/20100128/34b508ad/attachment.html 

From admin at jeffhowden.com  Thu Jan 28 17:18:57 2010
From: admin at jeffhowden.com (Jeff Howden)
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 17:18:57 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] Oregon's first sales tax
In-Reply-To: <1b1e8.45237e89.38938857@aol.com>
References: <1b1e8.45237e89.38938857@aol.com>
Message-ID: <021101caa081$086ac200$19404600$@com>

> From: Jamsm at aol.com [mailto:Jamsm at aol.com]
> 
> 1) You never included any calculation or rate of
>    taxation on the Gross;

I quote:

  "Based on some quick research [1], the top rate
   for corporate income tax in Oregon is 7.9%
   meaning that $2,000 in taxable income results
   in $158 in Oregon corporate income tax owed."

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> 3) OK - I admit I  misread that statement as rank vs score
>    All the data I  have ever read - in the past - always indicated
>    that Oregon was not a business friendly state.  I have no
>    intention of digging that data out and have already sent far
>    more emails to you than I had originally intended.
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

With that, I'm tempted to go look up the last 20 years of data on state by
state business friendliness metrics.  However, it wouldn't have any context.
What matters is where it stands today and the last 5 years show it'll stay
that way for some time to come.

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> [...] The product he deals with would NEVER be SOLD on the Internet
> in the form he works with and never sold at sites such as eBay etc
> unless it was sold as a collectable! [...]
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

And there's the flaw -- "in the form he works with".  Refusing to adjust to
market demand is where the problems come in.

Right now, I know of a fella in NY who is *starting* a magazine business and
doing *very* well out of the gate *because* of the Internet.  He's using it
to promote his magazine, sell his magazine, and reduce distribution costs.
The Internet isn't killing his business it's growing his business.

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> [...] I do not believe you are a Computer Engineer or have a long
> extensive Computer related background [...]
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

Not as long as you, but I have been professionally employed in this industry
for the last 14 years.

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> [...] Just to toss this one out there - I also predicted the Cell
> phone before CB's were the wave; not detailed but in general form
> and use. [...]
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

So did the writers of Dick Tracy, in 1946, about 30 years before CB went
mainstream thanks to TV.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick_Tracy#Evolution_of_the_strip
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens%27_band_radio#Growing_popularity_in_th
e_1970.27s

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> [...] Oh, and today you use software constantly that was based off
> a software idea that I developed!  I am one of those geeks that
> have insight and have developed new products of the 'tomorrow'.
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

Good.  With all this foresight into things that you claim to have, I'd hope
you'd make a lasting impression on the technology we use. (I mean that in
all seriousness.  I'm not being sarcastic or patronizing).

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> [...] something like what Obama is currently doing; printing money
> as fast as he can.
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

Something the fed has been doing since we went off the gold standard, you
mean.

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> 6) Your emails were laced with insults all the way back to your talk
>    with RLO - I just jumped in to give the guy some support and to
>    let you have some of your own insults.  I tire of it - onto more
>    interesting things.
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

I'll go back and look at what I wrote to see if what you say has merit or
not, but I don't recall insulting anyone.

Jeff



From allnutt at verizon.net  Thu Jan 28 19:07:00 2010
From: allnutt at verizon.net (Katie Allnutt)
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 19:07:00 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] Oregon's first sales tax
In-Reply-To: <004001caa07e$f7c7a460$e756ed20$@net>
References: <4ae76.7b0e4d9d.389294f4@aol.com>
	<6C776F94-5C3F-477A-8C04-E09320686189@teleport.com>
	<004001caa07e$f7c7a460$e756ed20$@net>
Message-ID: <05C18CB3-346A-4DCF-AC72-F8FD0B975420@verizon.net>

Not giving cost of living increases to the legislature is probably a  
good idea if it hasn't already been done.
It is the sort of thing that is highly visible and creates a level of  
good will  that few other things do.

Have you suggested it to them?



Senator Starr:
sen.brucestarr at state.or.us

Representative Riley:
rep.chuckriley at state.or.us

Katie

On Jan 28, 2010, at 5:04 PM, Steven wrote:

> How about not giving cost of living increases to the legislature.
> Maybe if Chuck R wants to help, he could stay at his job. He now  
> will get a
> retirement package from the legislature, then, regrettably, he will  
> get a
> senate pay. Meanwhile his wife gets his old paycheck.
> Do you really think Chuck is worth that much?
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com [mailto:grovenet- 
> bounces at rdrop.com] On
> Behalf Of Walt Wentz
> Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2010 11:46 PM
> To: Forest Grove local interests list
> Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Oregon's first sales tax
>
> Or, to rephrase:
> "Give us what we need to pay for the same level of services, or we
> can't provide that level anymore."
> As for all the "probably expendable" state employees, why not get
> specific? Which state employees or agencies would you like to see
> eliminated, and what benefits or disadvantages would derive from
> their elimination? Give us some specifics, and a cost-benefit
> rundown, on each, OK? The DMV, perhaps? Medicaid? The Public Schools?
> Fish and Game?  Hey, yeah, let's just keep chopping out all them
> "superfluous" state employees and agencies, and soon we won't be
> paying ANY taxes at all! And will be back to living in the Wild West
> days, medicating our own ailments with dandelion root and trading
> moldy beaver skins for
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet


From Chuck at chuckriley.org  Thu Jan 28 19:14:47 2010
From: Chuck at chuckriley.org (Chuck Riley)
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 19:14:47 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] Oregon's first sales tax
In-Reply-To: <004001caa07e$f7c7a460$e756ed20$@net>
References: <4ae76.7b0e4d9d.389294f4@aol.com>	<6C776F94-5C3F-477A-8C04-E09320686189@teleport.com>
	<004001caa07e$f7c7a460$e756ed20$@net>
Message-ID: <007e01caa091$36ea5770$a4bf0650$@org>

Actually I opted out of PERS when I was first elected because I thought I
might have to vote on it.

Chuck R.

-----Original Message-----
From: grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com [mailto:grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com] On
Behalf Of Steven
Sent: Thursday, January 28, 2010 5:04 PM
To: 'Forest Grove local interests list'
Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Oregon's first sales tax

How about not giving cost of living increases to the legislature.
Maybe if Chuck R wants to help, he could stay at his job. He now will get a
retirement package from the legislature, then, regrettably, he will get a
senate pay. Meanwhile his wife gets his old paycheck.
Do you really think Chuck is worth that much?

-----Original Message-----
From: grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com [mailto:grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com] On
Behalf Of Walt Wentz
Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2010 11:46 PM
To: Forest Grove local interests list
Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Oregon's first sales tax

Or, to rephrase:
"Give us what we need to pay for the same level of services, or we  
can't provide that level anymore."
As for all the "probably expendable" state employees, why not get  
specific? Which state employees or agencies would you like to see  
eliminated, and what benefits or disadvantages would derive from  
their elimination? Give us some specifics, and a cost-benefit  
rundown, on each, OK? The DMV, perhaps? Medicaid? The Public Schools?  
Fish and Game?  Hey, yeah, let's just keep chopping out all them  
"superfluous" state employees and agencies, and soon we won't be  
paying ANY taxes at all! And will be back to living in the Wild West  
days, medicating our own ailments with dandelion root and trading  
moldy beaver skins for 


_______________________________________________
GroveNet mailing list
GroveNet at rdrop.com
http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com 
Version: 8.5.432 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2654 - Release Date: 01/28/10
19:36:00




From Chuck at chuckriley.org  Thu Jan 28 19:17:42 2010
From: Chuck at chuckriley.org (Chuck Riley)
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 19:17:42 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] Oregon's first sales tax
In-Reply-To: <004001caa07e$f7c7a460$e756ed20$@net>
References: <4ae76.7b0e4d9d.389294f4@aol.com>	<6C776F94-5C3F-477A-8C04-E09320686189@teleport.com>
	<004001caa07e$f7c7a460$e756ed20$@net>
Message-ID: <008201caa091$9eb42a70$dc1c7f50$@org>

By the way, the Senate "pay" is the same as the House but with twice as many
constituents. 

-----Original Message-----
From: grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com [mailto:grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com] On
Behalf Of Steven
Sent: Thursday, January 28, 2010 5:04 PM
To: 'Forest Grove local interests list'
Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Oregon's first sales tax

How about not giving cost of living increases to the legislature.
Maybe if Chuck R wants to help, he could stay at his job. He now will get a
retirement package from the legislature, then, regrettably, he will get a
senate pay. Meanwhile his wife gets his old paycheck.
Do you really think Chuck is worth that much?

-----Original Message-----
From: grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com [mailto:grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com] On
Behalf Of Walt Wentz
Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2010 11:46 PM
To: Forest Grove local interests list
Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Oregon's first sales tax

Or, to rephrase:
"Give us what we need to pay for the same level of services, or we  
can't provide that level anymore."
As for all the "probably expendable" state employees, why not get  
specific? Which state employees or agencies would you like to see  
eliminated, and what benefits or disadvantages would derive from  
their elimination? Give us some specifics, and a cost-benefit  
rundown, on each, OK? The DMV, perhaps? Medicaid? The Public Schools?  
Fish and Game?  Hey, yeah, let's just keep chopping out all them  
"superfluous" state employees and agencies, and soon we won't be  
paying ANY taxes at all! And will be back to living in the Wild West  
days, medicating our own ailments with dandelion root and trading  
moldy beaver skins for 


_______________________________________________
GroveNet mailing list
GroveNet at rdrop.com
http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com 
Version: 8.5.432 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2654 - Release Date: 01/28/10
19:36:00




From Chuck at chuckriley.org  Thu Jan 28 19:21:53 2010
From: Chuck at chuckriley.org (Chuck Riley)
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 19:21:53 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] Oregon's first sales tax
In-Reply-To: <004001caa07e$f7c7a460$e756ed20$@net>
References: <4ae76.7b0e4d9d.389294f4@aol.com>	<6C776F94-5C3F-477A-8C04-E09320686189@teleport.com>
	<004001caa07e$f7c7a460$e756ed20$@net>
Message-ID: <008301caa092$343cce30$9cb66a90$@org>

Ask Bruce S if he opted out of PERS, or if his dad did.

-----Original Message-----
From: grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com [mailto:grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com] On
Behalf Of Steven
Sent: Thursday, January 28, 2010 5:04 PM
To: 'Forest Grove local interests list'
Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Oregon's first sales tax

How about not giving cost of living increases to the legislature.
Maybe if Chuck R wants to help, he could stay at his job. He now will get a
retirement package from the legislature, then, regrettably, he will get a
senate pay. Meanwhile his wife gets his old paycheck.
Do you really think Chuck is worth that much?

-----Original Message-----
From: grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com [mailto:grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com] On
Behalf Of Walt Wentz
Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2010 11:46 PM
To: Forest Grove local interests list
Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Oregon's first sales tax

Or, to rephrase:
"Give us what we need to pay for the same level of services, or we  
can't provide that level anymore."
As for all the "probably expendable" state employees, why not get  
specific? Which state employees or agencies would you like to see  
eliminated, and what benefits or disadvantages would derive from  
their elimination? Give us some specifics, and a cost-benefit  
rundown, on each, OK? The DMV, perhaps? Medicaid? The Public Schools?  
Fish and Game?  Hey, yeah, let's just keep chopping out all them  
"superfluous" state employees and agencies, and soon we won't be  
paying ANY taxes at all! And will be back to living in the Wild West  
days, medicating our own ailments with dandelion root and trading  
moldy beaver skins for 


_______________________________________________
GroveNet mailing list
GroveNet at rdrop.com
http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com 
Version: 8.5.432 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2654 - Release Date: 01/28/10
19:36:00




From jo.david at verizon.net  Thu Jan 28 19:27:43 2010
From: jo.david at verizon.net (David Morelli)
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 19:27:43 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] Oregon's first sales tax
In-Reply-To: <732585.59465.qm@web35303.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <732585.59465.qm@web35303.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <B2307C7B-6D67-40DF-B8EB-D1AB3B7160FA@verizon.net>

rlo,

When I create a product, it is constructed to meet the specifications.  That requires a very literal reading of the description.  The meaning of the words is important.  I cannot deliver a functional product by twisting definitions.

So, I tend to read the English written on this forum in the same way.  I try to use the generally accepted definitions for common words and the technical definition for technical words.

"Sales Tax" is a technical term.  And you abuse it.

A gross receipts tax is no more a sales tax, than a personal income tax is a sales tax.  

Otherwise the following argument would be true:  
You pay income taxes, and of course you add that expense into the price you charge for your labor.  So, income tax is a sales tax that your employer pays.  

Does that make you feel better? 

Of course not, because it isn't accurate. 

David


On Jan 28, 2010, at 6:10 AM, +rlo wrote:

> Again, WELL...do YOU really NOT think this gets "added in" SOMEHOW to the price you pay for almost ANY flipping goods or services??? If not then perhaps the open your eyes statement needs an adder for all of you....Open your eyes and THINK!!! oh wait...I get it...its just a cost of doing business...LOL LOL LOL LMAO.....Geesh
>> 
>> On Jan 27, 2010, at 9:02 PM, +rlo wrote:
>> 
>>> Well, aren't they???????????????????????????????? GeeZe people...OPEN YOUR EYES!
>> ...
>>> Sorry, that still doesn't make it a sales tax.  By your logic that'd mean that all taxes they already pay along with any mandatory governmental fees for doing business should also be called a sales tax.



From NoSpam03 at comcast.net  Thu Jan 28 19:55:33 2010
From: NoSpam03 at comcast.net (Steven)
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 19:55:33 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] Oregon's first sales tax
In-Reply-To: <007e01caa091$36ea5770$a4bf0650$@org>
References: <4ae76.7b0e4d9d.389294f4@aol.com>	<6C776F94-5C3F-477A-8C04-E09320686189@teleport.com>	<004001caa07e$f7c7a460$e756ed20$@net>
	<007e01caa091$36ea5770$a4bf0650$@org>
Message-ID: <000001caa096$e8a7cc90$b9f765b0$@net>

Bully for you Chuck!!!

-----Original Message-----
From: grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com [mailto:grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com] On
Behalf Of Chuck Riley
Sent: Thursday, January 28, 2010 7:15 PM
To: 'Forest Grove local interests list'
Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Oregon's first sales tax

Actually I opted out of PERS when I was first elected because I thought I
might have to vote on it.

Chuck R.



From Jamsm at aol.com  Thu Jan 28 20:07:04 2010
From: Jamsm at aol.com (Jamsm at aol.com)
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 23:07:04 EST
Subject: [Grovenet] a small private business owner - was: Oregon's first
	sales tax
Message-ID: <2064c.68d82391.3893b8e8@aol.com>

Your arrogance is showing again.  Just because you  know someone  that can 
succeed in creating a new business model does not mean everyone else  has 
that skill level.  Who said he was complaining or blaming others!   Only you 
implied it.

He is in the distribution of the Oregonian; called a wholesaler and handles 
 street sales which covers rack  and store sales.  He is not a  writer nor 
does he have any printing facilities etc. As  he puts it;"I am just a 
paperboy."  Yes, he could possibly move toward  being a courier doing local 
delivery of packages or something like  that, but that market is already heavily 
saturated and highly  competitive. 
Many newspapers have ceased all circulation - many  just close their doors 
and stop all circulation with no  warning.  A very few have moved to online 
or other media - which would not help my  relative as he is in the 
distribution end.  To my knowledge the majority of  the remaining 'wholesalers' are 
old enough to retire  or close to age of  retirement with my relative being 
one of the younger ones.  There  are probably a few younger than him still in 
the business.
 
The Internet has changed the way the younger age get their news - via the  
net and radio to some extent or TV.  When was the last time you saw  someone 
under 35, 40, or even 45  buy a newspaper?

As the older customers die off, his sales decline as very few  young people 
buy newspapers.
Coupons were a big thing at one time, as were the want ads and the sports  
news in the newspapers
These were the things that had people sometimes buying more than one copy  
a  day.
 
Today the Oregonian is down to one edition a day for street sales (I  
understand that they have even done away with their Saturday edition of the  
Sunday paper - I may be wrong about that; though I used to be an avid paper  
reader before I left Oregon I had the paper home delivered and did not look  
for the Sunday paper on Saturday.)  They used to have two daily  editions 
released to the street sales.  And when the Oregon Journal was  around it also 
had two editions (why the Journal died is another story  though.)  If you 
were aggressive in the street sales you could distribute a  2nd edition of the 
Sunday paper on Saturday evening that had the sports  scores.  Two carriers, 
downtown Portland, even carried a second edition  daily.
 
>From my relatives perspective - he has thousands of dollars invested  in 
equipment, racks, trucks etc.  If you did not know it, these carriers  are 
privately owned businesses - so when you  steal a newspaper from a  rack or 
damage a rack you are likely stealing from a mall business  operator. At one 
time he had two employees - for a number of  the recent years he has had zero 
employees.
 
I believe a few of the 'wholesalers' (street sales) have already given it  
up and the Oregonian has taken over the businesses in those districts.  I  
believe the Oregonian took over almost all the home delivery carriers  
(private businesses) long ago. I think FG has one of the few private  carrier 
businesses remaining. The last I heard the carrier in FG is called a  
mini-wholesaler and handles both street and home delivery, a private  business.
 
>From my relative's perspective as a seller of a product that is slowly  
dying due to the changes in the way the younger people  get their  news, job 
hunting, want ads, coupons (yes you can get coupons on the Internet  too), 
movie listings, etc. and is not that easily adopted to another  business model 
- he has to change his line of work.  All he has  done his whole life is 
sell newspapers since about the age of 12  (a guess.)  Eventually, the 
Oregonian will either take over  his district or will close their doors; either way 
putting him out of  business. They may pay him what they consider the 
current value of his  racks and may or may not give him something for his 
district.  Life has  gotten tough for him. Especially, since the recent stock crash 
probably took a  large portion of his savings.
 
As long as he can make money at it he is determined to hang on - he still  
thinks it will last until he retires.
Though, to support his family he is now  running his business and working 
for someone else (not newspapers) to make  ends meet.
 
How do I know so much about the business?  I started at age 10 selling  
papers door to door creating my own route. By the time I was in high school I  
was doing a full time job - working 7 days a week (no over time given as the 
pay  style was per edition delivery) delivering the papers.  I was called  
an overloader, working for the various wholesalers. When I went to college, 
I  returned to the newspaper business to make money.  I was very good at  
increasing sales.  I took one wholesalers Sunday sales which would   typically 
peak in February with around 8,000 copies for the weekend and he had  his 
low sales on the last weekend of August of around 4,000 copies.  The  last 
time I worked for him, I changed his sales to over 13,000 copies on the  last 
weekend of August!  This change in sales occurred between the months  of 
January and August.  As he cut the order of copies to meet what he  thought was 
his seasonal demand, I would go back and order more than what  he cut. 
[This wholesaler was not my relative, whom I have never worked  for.]
 
The Grouch
 
 
 
In a message dated 1/28/2010 8:03:12 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,  
admin at jeffhowden.com writes:

Chuck,

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
>  From: chuck [mailto:chuck at grovenet.net]
> 
> Record stores are  dead - thanks to iTunes, Napster, and P2P File
>  Sharing
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

Record  stores that have come up with new ways to present themselves,
attacking  niche markets that the companies you mentioned aren't covering,
etc. are  thriving.  They focus on things that make them better than any  of
those sites online.  They focus on vintage, not-oft-carried labels,  etc.

"Record stores" aren't failing because of the Internet.  If  anything 
they're
failing because the way we store and listen to music is  changing.  That may
well be tangentially related to the Internet, but  is not directly caused by
the  Internet.

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
>  Newspapers are dying thanks to online News and  blogs
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

Those  that are stuck using antiquated revenue models, yes.  Newspapers  
died
a little with the rise of radio and again with the rise of TV.   News is
still a hot commodity though.  Again, the Internet itself is  not 
responsible
for their death.  The lack of moving with the changing  times is  killing
them.

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
>  Magazines are dying off thanks to ezines and  blogs
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

Only  those that aren't finding ways to *use* the Internet; think Salon,
Wired,  etc.

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
>  Video stores are dying off thanks to Netflix, Hulu, and other online
>  video  channels
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

And  again, those that have chosen to approach it with new eyes are  
thriving,
think vintage, rare, niche genre  titles.

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
>  More close to home, we could ask The UPS Store how the internet
>  affected them, if they were still  open.
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

We  could ask, but I find it hard to fathom how the Internet had anything to
do  with the demise of their  business.

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
>  We could ask Your Travel Place, or maybe Hortons.  
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

While  you're at it -- ask them what they're doing to leverage the  
Internet.

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
>  Or any one of the multiple books stores that have come and
> gone.   The big brick and mortar books stores will be next thanks to
> Amazon  and eReaders, Kindle,  etc.
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

The  big brick and mortar book stores that are adjusting to changes in  
their
industry are already moving forward with technology plays of their  own.
They won't die unless they choose to not evolve.

In all of your  examples you cite the supposed death of something because of
the  Internet.  What you're not addressing however, is the birth of  
something
too.  If it weren't for these companies doing things to take  advantage of
what the Internet has to offer, they wouldn't be thriving like  they are.

Again, the Internet is a communications medium.  In and  of itself, it 
cannot
kill anything.  Businesses that choose to utilize  it can and do force less
savvy businesses out of the marketplace.  The  Internet is *not* what's 
doing
it though.  

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
>  And I find this comment very insulting.
> 
> Further, if he's  working two jobs to care for his family then it's
> apparent his focus  is not adequately on his business and that's the
> reason for it  failing.  Instead of blaming the Internet for his woes,
> he ought  to be taking responsibility for the situation and doing
> something  about it
> 
> So he should drop the other job, and focus entirely  on reviving his
> business?  It's his fault it's failing because  he's too busy trying
> to provide food for his family?   Have  you ever had to work 2 jobs
> just to make ends meet?  Believe me,  it's not fun.  Don't be too
> quick to judge, you may find yourself  in a similar position one  day.
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

If  the other job is keeping him from doing what he needs to do to make  his
business successful, then yes, he should drop it.  Or, he should  see that
the business isn't viable and either sell it or shutter it.   However,
limping along, working two jobs, splitting focus, and then the  whole time
complaining that it's someone else's fault isn't doing anybody  any good.

I've been in situations where I've had to work two jobs to  make ends meet.
You're right, it's not fun.  Doing so took a toll on  me physically and
mentally.  It took a toll on my relationships.   It took an enormous toll on
what I was able to put energy wise into either  job.  I smartened up.  I've
been more recently in situations  where I might have been advised to take on
a second job, but it simply  wouldn't benefit anyone in the long-term.  
Sure,
it'd put more money  in the wallet today, but ultimately it'd be more costly
in the long run  than if I'd simply put more focus on the one job.

For the record, I'm  not judging anyone for taking a second job.  That's a
decision  everyone has to make for themselves.  What I take issue with is
doing  so and then complaining that it's all someone/something else's fault
it's  not working.  Blaming doesn't get the job  done.

Jeff


_______________________________________________
GroveNet  mailing  list
GroveNet at rdrop.com
http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet


From Jamsm at aol.com  Thu Jan 28 20:07:26 2010
From: Jamsm at aol.com (Jamsm at aol.com)
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 23:07:26 EST
Subject: [Grovenet] Oregon's first sales tax
Message-ID: <20667.132c4d72.3893b8fe@aol.com>

I made no inflection that I distaste taxes - I only show distaste to taxes  
that target a few or do not follow the user pay strategy. Meaning - 
everyone  should have a reasonably equal share in the taxes (the equality aspect I 
will  not debate as I am sure we have different views as to what tax 
equality means  because there are many variants) and in  the cases that I do agree  
targeting a few ("user-pay" type taxes) would be a sample of say - creating 
a  tax and license fees on bicycles for the maintenance and creation of  
the roads and paths they use.  As only the bicyclists use them - thus a  user 
pay tax.  And I did use bicycles as an example to get  someone's ire.  
Taxing a small group of people to pay services of another  select group is wrong! 
 The liberals love to create taxes that others  pay to pay for their pet 
projects.  Sounds to me that you are the one that  has an aversion to taxes - 
why don't you volunteer to pay higher taxes for those  overpaid government 
workers.  Don't get me start on Oregon's school quality  (hint, they are 
joke) - I already posted lengthy detailed messages  here covering that.
 
I misread the last cite and have no desire to research Oregon  business tax 
law. subject closed.
Ask me about computers!  Not business  tax law. 
 
Jeff was making his digs at RLO before I stepped in to support RLO  and 
Jeff redirected his snipes at me.
 
You claim  the Right never answers question directly. I find that  false.
What I do find is the liberals will use creative research to support  their 
ideas and thus there is no point in debating with them other than if you  
want to have some fun with them.  Their ideas are so often Utopian based  and 
they are extremely offended that anyone should have an opposing view.   LOL 
- Just look at all the in-fighting that occurred in DC when the Dems  had 
total control and the numbers to do as they pleased.
They are most often the first name callers and are ready to belittle  you 
as often as they can. 
Just have to go to the history messages on this message board to see that  
in action.
 
I do not have to disclose where I live and it actually is none of your  
business.
At the time, I registered with Grovenet I lived in FG from that you  can 
find all the info you need to know and then some. More than I care to  give 
out anymore.  The Internet has become very invasive into one's privacy  and if 
you let the businesses on the net have it their way, you have  no privacy 
at all.
 
Try helping someone research a health issue - before 48 hours are up  you 
will likely receive emails (spam) promoting some product or treatment for  
the ailments you were researching.  Probably faster if you register at some  
site while researching.
Try it!
 
Bob - you have asked me before where I live - I  will leave that up to  you 
to figure out.  Is very easy to do! AND doesn't cost a dime.  lol
Bob even when I haven't chatted with you directly, you are ready to  
belittle me and snipe at me because I do  not choose  to give you  the information 
you desire!  Just look at the snipes you  made  below!
 
Tough! enquiring minds don't need to know  
 
The Grouch
 
 
 
In a message dated 1/28/2010 8:13:22 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,  
rab at jurislex.com writes:

Jamsm - Odd, I have no recollection of flaming you. And, since I have  been 
flamed, I think I know a bit about being flamed!!

But, it does  surprise me that many on the right-hand side of the spectrum 
seldom answer a  question directly, but rather throw back an ad hominem  
attack on the questioner. How odd, since it appears to me  that Jeff has been 
striving diligently to determine the source of your quotes  and to gently 
show you where you have apparently misread your own cites. And I  only asked 
where you live and if you have to pay for public services. The only  reason I 
asked is because I do not recall where you live, and your distaste  for 
paying taxes suggests that you have settled in an area (Somalia?) where  there 
are no taxes.

Just a bit odd.

And enquiring minds would  still like to know.

bob
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
On  1/28/2010 2:19 PM, _Jamsm at aol.com_ (mailto:Jamsm at aol.com)   wrote:  
If you read my previous posts, over the years,  you would know where I 

live. Oh, but I rarely post.

Enquiring minds need to  learn how to use the computer. 



As for the tax ranking you provided -  that sounds like a number using 

select data input that gives a number  representing the results you desire 
rave 

about (A typical liberal approach); but  it is also very likely based on 

sound numbers but looking at a small section of  the overall tax picture.  
See 

other email for numbers that show Oregon at  the bottom of the STATE 

BUSINESS TAX  CLIMATE



Again, END of this  discussion for me.



Flame me all you want - lol - as I do not care about  Oregon anymore.  I 

only watch this feed to see what you liberal leaning  people are thinking.  
 I 

 have no desire to debate with  you.



The Grouch

  




_______________________________________________
GroveNet  mailing  list
GroveNet at rdrop.com
http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet


From waltw at teleport.com  Thu Jan 28 21:32:37 2010
From: waltw at teleport.com (Walt Wentz)
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 21:32:37 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] Oregon's first sales tax
In-Reply-To: <004001caa07e$f7c7a460$e756ed20$@net>
References: <4ae76.7b0e4d9d.389294f4@aol.com>
	<6C776F94-5C3F-477A-8C04-E09320686189@teleport.com>
	<004001caa07e$f7c7a460$e756ed20$@net>
Message-ID: <880DEFE5-80DE-4120-9BD6-87FBE72195B6@teleport.com>

A sensible suggestion-- better yet, why not tell our reps that we  
will respect them more is they forego a COL adjustment in company  
with their struggling constituents?
Legislators get retirement packages, sure...  sometimes they work for  
them. Wouldn't it be nice if all of us could get retirement packages,  
instead of WTD (work till death) packages?
So shouldn't we vote for legislators who work for ordinary people,  
instead of corporate lobbyists who help ship our jobs and our  
infrastructure overseas? Legislators, in short, like Chuck R.?

On Jan 28, 2010, at 5:04 PM, Steven wrote:

> How about not giving cost of living increases to the legislature.
> Maybe if Chuck R wants to help, he could stay at his job. He now  
> will get a
> retirement package from the legislature, then, regrettably, he will  
> get a
> senate pay. Meanwhile his wife gets his old paycheck.
> Do you really think Chuck is worth that much?
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com [mailto:grovenet- 
> bounces at rdrop.com] On
> Behalf Of Walt Wentz
> Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2010 11:46 PM
> To: Forest Grove local interests list
> Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Oregon's first sales tax
>
> Or, to rephrase:
> "Give us what we need to pay for the same level of services, or we
> can't provide that level anymore."
> As for all the "probably expendable" state employees, why not get
> specific? Which state employees or agencies would you like to see
> eliminated, and what benefits or disadvantages would derive from
> their elimination? Give us some specifics, and a cost-benefit
> rundown, on each, OK? The DMV, perhaps? Medicaid? The Public Schools?
> Fish and Game?  Hey, yeah, let's just keep chopping out all them
> "superfluous" state employees and agencies, and soon we won't be
> paying ANY taxes at all! And will be back to living in the Wild West
> days, medicating our own ailments with dandelion root and trading
> moldy beaver skins for
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet



From jo.david at verizon.net  Thu Jan 28 22:15:10 2010
From: jo.david at verizon.net (David Morelli)
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 22:15:10 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] Oregon's first sales tax
In-Reply-To: <20667.132c4d72.3893b8fe@aol.com>
References: <20667.132c4d72.3893b8fe@aol.com>
Message-ID: <82CFF6CB-271E-4760-B172-52DCE1CFB415@verizon.net>

On Jan 28, 2010, at 8:07 PM, jamsm at aol.com wrote:

> I made no inflection that I distaste taxes - I only show distaste to taxes  that target a few or do not follow the user pay strategy. 

jamsm,

Okay, so let us review taxing strategies to support a user pay strategy. 
I presume that an organized social body is necessary for projects too large for single individuals.

National Defense:  
Import tariffs on ship born goods to fund the Navy, Marines, and Coast Guard.  
Import tariffs on air born goods to fund the Air Force and Homeland Security.
Import tariffs on ground shipped goods to fund the border patrol.
Tax on workers to fund Immigration enforcement
Property taxes to fund the Army and Native American services.
Mandatory minimum universal military suffrage as a requirement for inheritance or property ownership.
(dying for your country is the highest tax bracket)

What the market will bear pricing for:
Severance fees on public land, forest and fields.
Extraction fees on minerals.
Rents on public lands.
Rents on public frequencies.
Rents for public water ways.
Licenses for all discoveries funded by public research.

Alumni tax based upon the number of years of public education to fund primary education and educators retirement.
Tax on employers to fund secondary education
Tax on voters to fund elections
Birth and immigration tax to fund senior programs.
Tax on imports and exports of goods and services to fund international programs.

Police and fire funded by fire and theft insurance premiums.
Tax on internet traffic to fund international cyber crime enforcement
Tax on published work to fund international copy-write enforcement
Tax on physical products to fund international patent enforcement
Pollution taxes to fund pollution cleanup.
Noise taxes to fund noise abatement.
Property taxes to fund flood control and recovery
User insurance to fund search and rescue.

Civil Courts funded by court fees and tax on awards.
Criminal Courts, FBI, Public prosecutors & prisons funded by fines and forfeitures, and the parents of convicts.

Domestic travel tax to fund interstate highways, airports and public rail.
Roads funded by access fees and user fees (fuel, weight/mile, etc.)
New Capital projects and expansions funded by new development charges
Repair/replacement funded by user service charges.
Libraries funded by access and circulation taxes

Public welfare would need to be financed by loans not grants.  And litigation would need to replace public assistance.

Together with these funding sources, I would add, removal of limited liability for corporations, shareholders, boards and trustees.  And removal of bankruptcy options for corporations.

Be aware, these taxes are not sufficient to fund our nuclear arsenal, most of our overseas bases, our Star Wars research, or the welfare state.




From admin at jeffhowden.com  Thu Jan 28 22:36:51 2010
From: admin at jeffhowden.com (Jeff Howden)
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 22:36:51 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] a small private business owner - was: Oregon's first
	sales tax
In-Reply-To: <2064c.68d82391.3893b8e8@aol.com>
References: <2064c.68d82391.3893b8e8@aol.com>
Message-ID: <023e01caa0ad$71e85b80$55b91280$@com>

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> From: Jamsm at aol.com
> 
> [...] Just because you know someone that can succeed in creating a
> new business model does not mean everyone else has that skill level.
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

I completely agree.  However, that's what it takes to succeed in a free
market.  You have to constantly be on top of what your customer base
wants/needs and be willing to evolve your business to accommodate that.  If
you're unable to do that, then maybe you shouldn't be risking your future on
your inability to successfully compete. Or, hire someone or a company that
can do that part for you and you focus on doing whatever it is about your
business that you're really good at/enjoy.

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> Who said he was complaining or blaming others! Only you implied it.
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

I think technically *you* were the one blaming the Internet.

"yes, his business is being destroyed by the Internet"

Aside: I pictured an old B&W with Godzilla (the Internet) crushing a car.

Anyway, I was mistaken in a previous response to suggest he was blaming.
Clearly he was not; you were.

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> He is in the distribution of the Oregonian; [...]
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

So, business mistake #1 - relying on a single client for your livelihood.
It's an easy mistake to make and it's certainly an easy one to get suckered
into during prosperous times.  However, it's a colossal obstacle to overcome
during difficult times.  Your success is inextricably tied to your client's
success or demise.  You're not even really running your own business at that
point.  You might as well be a wage earner.  At least as a wage earner you'd
be entitled to overtime pay for all the extra hours you put in and you might
even get some extra benefits you couldn't normally afford to pay yourself
(health insurance, vacation, paid holidays, etc.).

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> [...] Yes, he could possibly move toward  being a courier doing
> local delivery of packages or something like that, but that market
> is already heavily saturated and highly competitive. [...]
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

With a truck, there's all sorts of things he could diversify into.  It's
just a matter of getting creative and thinking outside the box.  There are
companies that specialize in consulting on things like this.

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> The Internet has changed the way the younger age get their news -
> via the net and radio to some extent or TV.  When was the last time
> you saw someone under 35, 40, or even 45 buy a newspaper?
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

The newspaper has been dying a slow death for many, many years now.  I'm
surprised you're not also blaming the environmental movement on its death as
well.

Even companies on the Internet are having to change strategies because
*people* (the magical, mystical question in all of this) are now doing
things differently.  There are scores of ad companies that are failing
online because people surfing the web just aren't clicking on ads anymore.
Is the Internet killing their businesses too?  No, a change in customer
expectations and behavior is doing it.

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> From my relatives perspective - he has thousands of dollars invested
> in equipment, racks, trucks etc. [...]
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

The bulk of that investment is probably in the trucks which could be
repurposed, possibly with little to no cost, to other duty.

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> At one time he had two employees - for a number of  the recent years
> he has had zero employees.
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

Speaking of business sizes and the state minimum tax.  I doubt it'll even
apply to him as he's probably a sole proprietor.  Even if he isn't setup
that way, I'm sure he still makes a profit that results in him paying a
business income tax greater than $150 in which case the Measure 67 won't
even kick in for him cause I'm sure he's below $500,000 in gross receipts.
Now, supposing he's under $500,000 in gross receipts and he posts absolutely
no corporate income due to legitimate operating expenses, I'm sure that the
$150 minimum tax isn't going to be the make or break for his business.

Jeff



From admin at jeffhowden.com  Thu Jan 28 22:47:41 2010
From: admin at jeffhowden.com (Jeff Howden)
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 22:47:41 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] Oregon's first sales tax
In-Reply-To: <20667.132c4d72.3893b8fe@aol.com>
References: <20667.132c4d72.3893b8fe@aol.com>
Message-ID: <024701caa0ae$f4d2a680$de77f380$@com>

> From: Jamsm at aol.com
> 
> I misread the last cite and have no desire to research
> Oregon business tax law. subject closed.

Yeah, quick, dodge the subject, then avoid doing the research for fear you
might find out you're even more mistaken than has already been established.

> Jeff was making his digs at RLO before I stepped in to
> support RLO and Jeff redirected his snipes at me.

You are mistaken, sir.  I got no "digs" at RLO.  I was merely responding, in
a mature, polite fashion to comments made on this discussion list that were
neither polite, nor mature.

> Try helping someone research a health issue - before 48
> hours are up you will likely receive emails (spam) promoting
> some product or treatment for the ailments you were
> researching.  Probably faster if you register at some site
> while researching. Try it!

That's fear-mongering. From working in the industry I happen to know it's
patently false, with the exception of if you register at "some site" in
which case you essentially asked for it.  Any business that doesn't market
to its customers, especially new ones, is missing tons of opportunity.

Jeff



From rlo42 at yahoo.com  Fri Jan 29 06:18:02 2010
From: rlo42 at yahoo.com (+rlo)
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 06:18:02 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [Grovenet] Oregon's first sales tax
In-Reply-To: <024701caa0ae$f4d2a680$de77f380$@com>
Message-ID: <209563.8229.qm@web35303.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

"Yeah, quick, dodge the subject, then avoid doing the research for fear you
might find out you're even more mistaken than has already been established."

Yep, sure sound mature and polite to me! NOT! I have a biz to run so we can pay the taxes you suckers voted for. I guess you aren't mature enough, obviously, to read everything so that you would realized I am unsubscribing BECAUSE OF PEOPLE LIKE YOU!

--- On Thu, 1/28/10, Jeff Howden <admin at jeffhowden.com> wrote:


From: Jeff Howden <admin at jeffhowden.com>
Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Oregon's first sales tax
To: "'Forest Grove local interests list'" <grovenet at rdrop.com>
Date: Thursday, January 28, 2010, 10:47 PM


> From: Jamsm at aol.com
> 
> I misread the last cite and have no desire to research
> Oregon business tax law. subject closed.

Yeah, quick, dodge the subject, then avoid doing the research for fear you
might find out you're even more mistaken than has already been established.

> Jeff was making his digs at RLO before I stepped in to
> support RLO and Jeff redirected his snipes at me.

You are mistaken, sir.? I got no "digs" at RLO.? I was merely responding, in
a mature, polite fashion to comments made on this discussion list that were
neither polite, nor mature.

> Try helping someone research a health issue - before 48
> hours are up you will likely receive emails (spam) promoting
> some product or treatment for the ailments you were
> researching.? Probably faster if you register at some site
> while researching. Try it!

That's fear-mongering. From working in the industry I happen to know it's
patently false, with the exception of if you register at "some site" in
which case you essentially asked for it.? Any business that doesn't market
to its customers, especially new ones, is missing tons of opportunity.

Jeff


_______________________________________________
GroveNet mailing list
GroveNet at rdrop.com
http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet



      

From allnutt at verizon.net  Fri Jan 29 07:21:17 2010
From: allnutt at verizon.net (Katie Allnutt)
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 07:21:17 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] Oregon's first sales tax
In-Reply-To: <209563.8229.qm@web35303.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <209563.8229.qm@web35303.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <1848B851-08D8-4DAE-A949-CB3FE4A8D040@verizon.net>

I have read and understood you to say that you are unsubscribing.
Multiple times.
What I don't understand is why you are not unsubscribed already.
It is something you can do for yourself, you don't have to have  
somebody do it for  you.

At least people like me can do it.

Katie (hmm, wonder who put me in such a grouchy mood today.)

On Jan 29, 2010, at 6:18 AM, +rlo wrote:

> "Yeah, quick, dodge the subject, then avoid doing the research for  
> fear you
> might find out you're even more mistaken than has already been  
> established."
>
> Yep, sure sound mature and polite to me! NOT! I have a biz to run  
> so we can pay the taxes you suckers voted for. I guess you aren't  
> mature enough, obviously, to read everything so that you would  
> realized I am unsubscribing BECAUSE OF PEOPLE LIKE YOU!
>
> --- On Thu, 1/28/10, Jeff Howden <admin at jeffhowden.com> wrote:
>
>
> From: Jeff Howden <admin at jeffhowden.com>
> Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Oregon's first sales tax
> To: "'Forest Grove local interests list'" <grovenet at rdrop.com>
> Date: Thursday, January 28, 2010, 10:47 PM
>
>
>> From: Jamsm at aol.com
>>
>> I misread the last cite and have no desire to research
>> Oregon business tax law. subject closed.
>
> Yeah, quick, dodge the subject, then avoid doing the research for  
> fear you
> might find out you're even more mistaken than has already been  
> established.
>
>> Jeff was making his digs at RLO before I stepped in to
>> support RLO and Jeff redirected his snipes at me.
>
> You are mistaken, sir.  I got no "digs" at RLO.  I was merely  
> responding, in
> a mature, polite fashion to comments made on this discussion list  
> that were
> neither polite, nor mature.
>
>> Try helping someone research a health issue - before 48
>> hours are up you will likely receive emails (spam) promoting
>> some product or treatment for the ailments you were
>> researching.  Probably faster if you register at some site
>> while researching. Try it!
>
> That's fear-mongering. From working in the industry I happen to  
> know it's
> patently false, with the exception of if you register at "some  
> site" in
> which case you essentially asked for it.  Any business that doesn't  
> market
> to its customers, especially new ones, is missing tons of opportunity.
>
> Jeff
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet



From OleHossTreeFarm at webtv.net  Fri Jan 29 08:21:12 2010
From: OleHossTreeFarm at webtv.net (Ole Hoss)
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 08:21:12 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] A Hosstyle Greeting For You
Message-ID: <2641-4B630AF8-5275@storefull-3171.bay.webtv.net>

Hi This Greeting Is Just For You - TGIF :-
http://exclusives.250free.com/html/friday.html

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/attachments/20100129/b39953a5/attachment.html 

From Jamsm at aol.com  Fri Jan 29 08:39:00 2010
From: Jamsm at aol.com (Jamsm at aol.com)
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 11:39:00 EST
Subject: [Grovenet] a small private business owner
Message-ID: <98b5.170d6f3.38946924@aol.com>

Given his trucks are not that great of a condition - these people  
(wholesalers) often buy used trucks and keep them running for years beyond  what 
most companies would use them. Have you ever noticed one.  As a  courier 
business his truck maintenance would tear him apart - they are  old.  His racks 
probably have more value than his trucks. Also, you  ignored the fact that 
delivery services are a highly competitive market that is  saturated. His 
business model had been around many years and he had no  expectations of it 
changing significantly - though I had warned him - he just  did not visualize or 
realize the impact.
 
If you took the Internet out of the picture, then the primary source for  
much of the information that is supplied by newspapers would still be in  
high demand via newspapers. You can disagree with that, but if you look at  
what really is the major factor of destroying the newspaper businesses  it goes 
back to the Internet. The newspaper sales did not decline significantly  
until after the Internet went public and people started looking to the 
Internet  for information.  His sales were just fine in 1995  - as several years 
passed and more people got online and more  information was created online his 
sales declined.  I used to be  an avid newspaper reader, I rarely even 
glance at one now.  When was  the last time you read one as a primary source of 
information?   Most people today, get their news and information via TV, 
Radio to some  extent and the Internet.
 
Sure, he made mistakes in not diversifying his business but he  thought  it 
would survive until he retired - it still might, but not at the  payoff 
levels he expected.  Over the years he did discuss some business  ventures but 
he never acted on them as he was comfortable making what he made at  the 
time and considered the ventures too risky with low payoff.
 
Newspapers have not been 'dying' for many years.  It has only been in  the 
last 15 or so (less) years that their sales have plummeted.  As  people 
acquired computers and started sharing information on the Internet  then 
newspaper sales started declining significantly - think  editorial and the other 
areas I had mentioned that were high reasons for people  buying newspapers.  
Where do they go now to get that same information that  wasn't present 
before, again the Internet.  There are a number of  businesses that are being 
significantly impacted by the Internet - US  Mail being one.  Much of the mail 
that used to be transmitted via hard  copy and handled by US Mail is now web 
based.  Advertising, Bills, Bill  paying, taxes, etc etc etc.
 
You can claim I am playing a blame game - but not in the manner you  
originally implied - not as an excuse, but as a fact and a cause.
 
a side note: I retired from the computer industry before you started web  
development,  just putting things into perspective. (I retired before the  
Internet went public.)
I believe I understand why you consider newspapers have been dying a  long 
time as you probably view 1995 a long time ago.   In  computer development 
time it is; as life goes, it isn't.  I might even  venture to say that there 
is a high probability that you have purchased very few  newspapers, if any.  
You may have read some while in school to do  assignments and were probably 
provided by the school.
 
END of this topic for me
 
The Grouch
 
 
In a message dated 1/29/2010 1:37:06 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,  
admin at jeffhowden.com writes:

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
>  From: Jamsm at aol.com
> 
> [...] Just because you know someone that  can succeed in creating a
> new business model does not mean everyone  else has that skill  level.
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

I  completely agree.  However, that's what it takes to succeed in a  free
market.  You have to constantly be on top of what your customer  base
wants/needs and be willing to evolve your business to accommodate  that.  If
you're unable to do that, then maybe you shouldn't be  risking your future 
on
your inability to successfully compete. Or, hire  someone or a company that
can do that part for you and you focus on doing  whatever it is about your
business that you're really good  at/enjoy.

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
>  Who said he was complaining or blaming others! Only you implied  it.
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

I  think technically *you* were the one blaming the Internet.

"yes, his  business is being destroyed by the Internet"

Aside: I pictured an old  B&W with Godzilla (the Internet) crushing a car.

Anyway, I was  mistaken in a previous response to suggest he was blaming.
Clearly he was  not; you  were.

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
>  He is in the distribution of the Oregonian;  [...]
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

So,  business mistake #1 - relying on a single client for your livelihood.
It's  an easy mistake to make and it's certainly an easy one to get suckered
into  during prosperous times.  However, it's a colossal obstacle to  
overcome
during difficult times.  Your success is inextricably tied to  your client's
success or demise.  You're not even really running your  own business at 
that
point.  You might as well be a wage earner.   At least as a wage earner 
you'd
be entitled to overtime pay for all the  extra hours you put in and you 
might
even get some extra benefits you  couldn't normally afford to pay yourself
(health insurance, vacation, paid  holidays,  etc.).

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
>  [...] Yes, he could possibly move toward  being a courier doing
>  local delivery of packages or something like that, but that market
> is  already heavily saturated and highly competitive.  [...]
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

With  a truck, there's all sorts of things he could diversify into.   It's
just a matter of getting creative and thinking outside the box.   There are
companies that specialize in consulting on things like  this.

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
>  The Internet has changed the way the younger age get their news -
> via  the net and radio to some extent or TV.  When was the last time
>  you saw someone under 35, 40, or even 45 buy a  newspaper?
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

The  newspaper has been dying a slow death for many, many years now.   I'm
surprised you're not also blaming the environmental movement on its  death 
as
well.

Even companies on the Internet are having to change  strategies because
*people* (the magical, mystical question in all of this)  are now doing
things differently.  There are scores of ad companies  that are failing
online because people surfing the web just aren't clicking  on ads anymore.
Is the Internet killing their businesses too?  No, a  change in customer
expectations and behavior is doing  it.

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
>  From my relatives perspective - he has thousands of dollars invested
>  in equipment, racks, trucks etc.  [...]
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

The  bulk of that investment is probably in the trucks which could  be
repurposed, possibly with little to no cost, to other  duty.

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
>  At one time he had two employees - for a number of  the recent  years
> he has had zero  employees.
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

Speaking  of business sizes and the state minimum tax.  I doubt it'll even
apply  to him as he's probably a sole proprietor.  Even if he isn't  setup
that way, I'm sure he still makes a profit that results in him paying  a
business income tax greater than $150 in which case the Measure 67  won't
even kick in for him cause I'm sure he's below $500,000 in gross  receipts.
Now, supposing he's under $500,000 in gross receipts and he posts  
absolutely
no corporate income due to legitimate operating expenses, I'm  sure that the
$150 minimum tax isn't going to be the make or break for his  business.

Jeff


_______________________________________________
GroveNet  mailing  list
GroveNet at rdrop.com
http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet


From Jamsm at aol.com  Fri Jan 29 08:39:07 2010
From: Jamsm at aol.com (Jamsm at aol.com)
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 11:39:07 EST
Subject: [Grovenet] Oregon's first sales tax
Message-ID: <98cb.14668c2e.3894692b@aol.com>

Someone did exactly what I expected - took me out of  context!  The 
sentence you extracted was obviously  poorly worded (being very tired I failed to 
properly proof read  it) as you managed to misinterpret what I was saying and 
took off on a wild  tangent dissecting a select part of what I was saying. 
I   gave an example of a user-pay-tax to try to explain myself which you  
ignored.

I am not saying to have user-pay on all areas of taxation.
Let me rephrase what I mean in greater detail. Hopefully, I can give a  
better picture and am sure you  will disagree with some of my  thoughts.
 
When major infrastructure is "required for everyone's benefit and a  
'significant majority agree' that it is really needed" then everyone gets  taxed.  
Samples: National defense, Police, fire etc. 
 
When a few are benefiting, such as bike lanes, bicycle paths,  etc. then 
those few should provide a (hopefully significant) share of  the cost.  [Which 
currently, they do not pay anything extra to support  their usage  - see 
next example for a group that does pay extra.]  If  they can't afford it, then 
tough!  Or  let commercial enterprises  provide the service (of course this 
would not work for bike lanes.)   Another example:  Autos and trucks: pay 
license fees, gas taxes, etc  to help support the roadways which are a 
benefit to all so everyone else  also kicks in to help create and maintain the 
roads - this actually also belongs  in the major infrastructure category due to 
the expense involved and the fact  the roads are used by everyone in some 
direct or indirect usage.  A  better example: If a select group desires this 
or that - like, say all the  sport fields in all the parks, schools, etc in 
FG: those 'special' groups  should bare out a significant portion of the 
expense for those items. Their  paying a small usage fee (if any at this time) 
like they might do now  is not anywhere near sufficient to cover the expense 
the tax payer pays to  create and maintain these fields!  When they play  
at night - who  pays the light bill?  I surely hope the organization at  
least does this.  

[Entertainment Sports are over-rated and nothing more than modernized  
gladiators - just look at what some of the more extreme entertainment sports  
have gone to. [Even the main  stream sports have turned violent.] They  are so 
close to actual Roman gladiators that fought to the death.  It is  
unbelievable.  Coming soon to you, man fights man to the death, man fights  lion to 
the death, etc.  It is coming and is probably just a matter of  time. I 
suspect you could go to some SE Asian country, get some  willing participants 
and 'air' the battles on the Internet with viewer-ship  paying a fee.  Hmm, 
that may actually be coming sooner than I think.]
 

Taxing a select category of society for the benefit of a different select  
category of people is wrong!
Example: Lets apply a tax on all sporting  goods, exercise centers and 
entertainment sport activities to provide  funding for caring for the children 
that are born to those that would rather  have an abortion. (Trying to find 
something that a select group of people might  desire but the majority of 
those taxed probably would not agree to. (Obviously,  this is not the best 
example.)  The cigarette tax for child health care is  exactly this type tax!  
To change that to a fairer tax - you might  have a tax on all families with 
children or maybe tax everyone equally to  provide the health care to 
children. Or, lets apply a tax to all sporting  events, sport equipment etc. to 
provide the health care. 
 
I do not agree to any style of taxation for broad  based health care, as 
they lead to the socialized health care  that the liberals so desire. 
Socialized health care stinks!  Health care is  not a constitutional given right.  
Lets get back to the way organizations,  families and people in general cared 
for people instead of mandating  it by laws that you help those in need. I 
forgot,the family entity has  successfully (for the most part) been 
destroyed and now the liberals want  the government to be your care taker.  You can 
not legislate  morality  or the desire to care for others and have it be 
successful. 
 
[ Hint: the Star Trek society is a fictional utopian society. The  ex-hippy 
utopian seekers helped create the liberal movement seeking that utopian  
society or one similar.  
(I do not want to explain my reasoning for that inflammatory  statement but 
I do have valid reasoning for it - though you may  or may not agree to it. 
LOL) ]
 
The Grouch
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------
 
In a message dated 1/29/2010 1:16:08 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,  
jo.david at verizon.net writes:

On Jan  28, 2010, at 8:07 PM, jamsm at aol.com wrote:

> I made no inflection  that I distaste taxes - I only show distaste to 
taxes  that target a few  or do not follow the user pay strategy. 

jamsm,

Okay, so let us  review taxing strategies to support a user pay strategy. 
I presume that an  organized social body is necessary for projects too 
large for single  individuals.

National Defense:  
Import tariffs on ship born  goods to fund the Navy, Marines, and Coast 
Guard.  
Import tariffs on  air born goods to fund the Air Force and Homeland 
Security.
Import tariffs  on ground shipped goods to fund the border patrol.
Tax on workers to fund  Immigration enforcement
Property taxes to fund the Army and Native American  services.
Mandatory minimum universal military suffrage as a requirement  for 
inheritance or property ownership.
(dying for your country is the  highest tax bracket)

What the market will bear pricing  for:
Severance fees on public land, forest and fields.
Extraction fees  on minerals.
Rents on public lands.
Rents on public  frequencies.
Rents for public water ways.
Licenses for all discoveries  funded by public research.

Alumni tax based upon the number of years of  public education to fund 
primary education and educators retirement.
Tax on  employers to fund secondary education
Tax on voters to fund  elections
Birth and immigration tax to fund senior programs.
Tax on  imports and exports of goods and services to fund international  
programs.

Police and fire funded by fire and theft insurance  premiums.
Tax on internet traffic to fund international cyber crime  enforcement
Tax on published work to fund international copy-write  enforcement
Tax on physical products to fund international patent  enforcement
Pollution taxes to fund pollution cleanup.
Noise taxes to  fund noise abatement.
Property taxes to fund flood control and  recovery
User insurance to fund search and rescue.

Civil Courts  funded by court fees and tax on awards.
Criminal Courts, FBI, Public  prosecutors & prisons funded by fines and 
forfeitures, and the parents of  convicts.

Domestic travel tax to fund interstate highways, airports and  public rail.
Roads funded by access fees and user fees (fuel, weight/mile,  etc.)
New Capital projects and expansions funded by new development  charges
Repair/replacement funded by user service charges.
Libraries  funded by access and circulation taxes

Public welfare would need to be  financed by loans not grants.  And 
litigation would need to replace  public assistance.

Together with these funding sources, I would add,  removal of limited 
liability for corporations, shareholders, boards and  trustees.  And removal of 
bankruptcy options for corporations.

Be  aware, these taxes are not sufficient to fund our nuclear arsenal, most 
of our  overseas bases, our Star Wars research, or the welfare  state.



_______________________________________________
GroveNet  mailing  list
GroveNet at rdrop.com
http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet


From allnutt at verizon.net  Fri Jan 29 09:06:58 2010
From: allnutt at verizon.net (Katie Allnutt)
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 09:06:58 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] A Hosstyle Greeting For You
In-Reply-To: <2641-4B630AF8-5275@storefull-3171.bay.webtv.net>
References: <2641-4B630AF8-5275@storefull-3171.bay.webtv.net>
Message-ID: <BD512ECC-AD61-4B1A-8CD5-9ABE1A3C0F38@verizon.net>

Hope you have a great weekend too.
There might even be a smidge of sunshine as well.

Katie

On Jan 29, 2010, at 8:21 AM, Ole Hoss wrote:

> Hi This Greeting Is Just For You - TGIF :-
> http://exclusives.250free.com/html/friday.html
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet



From Jamsm at aol.com  Fri Jan 29 09:18:33 2010
From: Jamsm at aol.com (Jamsm at aol.com)
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 12:18:33 EST
Subject: [Grovenet] spam from web browsing and privacy
Message-ID: <afe0.3e1ab538.38947269@aol.com>

Jeff,
You are obviously missing an opportunity per your last statement for  
helping your customer base potentially advertise or report to them valuable  
information about their visitors.

There are companies that do use visitation to their site as a validation to 
 send email (porn sites come to mind as some that may still do this); 
though many  people think of it as spam and fewer companies still practice  this 
today.  Also, spam filters hopefully are smart enough  to catch and dispose 
of most of that style email today as spam.   Ever wonder how you acquired 
spam from porn sites - there are many ways you can  get it - but one is 
through your assigned IP address - it doesn't have to be  from an infected email 
friend - all you have to have is to be assigned an IP  address that was 
recently used to access a porn site or the porn site may  have broadcast the spam 
to random IP addresses but the latter is often  caught by spam catchers on 
the mail servers. Today the spam catchers may even be  catching the first 
style I mentioned.

Do you identify where your customers' visitors might  regionally live for 
your customers?
You should be.
 
It is not fear mongering!  Advertisers are gaining huge data bases on  
people.
Social web sites are gaining even more personal data!
 
If you register at a site, which more are requiring you to do, then  they 
are able to develop specific browsing habits about you.  If you  participate 
in an online contest/giveaway you are likely submitting your data to  an 
advertiser that is then able to gain intimate knowledge of your browsing  
habits if they are one of the major advertisement services.  If you do  not clear 
your cookies and for better protection reset your IP address the major  
advertisers can track your web browsing habits (when you visit a site they  
advertise on) in detail and connect that to any information you  provided them. 
 
Browse safely and clear cookies often - better yet, reset your IP address  
often too but this does not need to be performed as frequent - dynamically  
assigned IP's are typically reset weekly; I prefer to do  this  more often 
depending on where I visit. (and I am not a porn user - I have  taught people 
how to avoid such sites while cleaning  infections.) Oh, avoid social web 
sites completely if  you consider your privacy important.
 
The Grouch
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------
 
In a message dated 1/29/2010 1:47:53 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,  
admin at jeffhowden.com writes:

>  From: Jamsm at aol.com
> 
> I misread the last cite and have no  desire to research
> Oregon business tax law. subject  closed.

Yeah, quick, dodge the subject, then avoid doing the research  for fear you
might find out you're even more mistaken than has already been  established.

> Jeff was making his digs at RLO before I stepped in  to
> support RLO and Jeff redirected his snipes at me.

You are  mistaken, sir.  I got no "digs" at RLO.  I was merely responding,  
in
a mature, polite fashion to comments made on this discussion list that  were
neither polite, nor mature.

> Try helping someone research a  health issue - before 48
> hours are up you will likely receive emails  (spam) promoting
> some product or treatment for the ailments you  were
> researching.  Probably faster if you register at some  site
> while researching. Try it!

That's fear-mongering. From  working in the industry I happen to know it's
patently false, with the  exception of if you register at "some site" in
which case you essentially  asked for it.  Any business that doesn't market
to its customers,  especially new ones, is missing tons of  opportunity.

Jeff


_______________________________________________
GroveNet  mailing  list
GroveNet at rdrop.com
http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet


From admin at jeffhowden.com  Fri Jan 29 09:51:21 2010
From: admin at jeffhowden.com (Jeff Howden)
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 09:51:21 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] Oregon's first sales tax
In-Reply-To: <209563.8229.qm@web35303.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <024701caa0ae$f4d2a680$de77f380$@com>
	<209563.8229.qm@web35303.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <02fa01caa10b$acbdea00$0639be00$@com>

RLO,

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> From: +rlo [mailto:rlo42 at yahoo.com]
> 
> "Yeah, quick, dodge the subject, then avoid doing the research for
>  fear you might find out you're even more mistaken than has already
>  been established."
> 
> Yep, sure sound mature and polite to me! NOT!
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

It's certainly more polite than using words like stupid and ignorant and
definitely more mature than using phrases like "H E double hockey sticks".

While I realize that if you're all jacked up emotionally about this
conversation you may not be able to spot the difference, my above statements
are *not*, in fact, rude as they are identifying and calling out behavior
and are not an attack on a person.

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> [...] I have a biz to run so we can pay the taxes you suckers voted
> for. [...]
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

I have a business to run too.  I'm not worried about the new taxes, who
voted for them, or why because they won't affect my business.  I doubt
they'll affect yours either.

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> [...] I guess you aren't mature enough, obviously, to read
> everything so that you would realized I am unsubscribing BECAUSE OF
> PEOPLE LIKE YOU!
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

And there's the blame game again.  You are threatening to unsubscribe
because you choose to.  No matter how much you disagree or dislike it, I am
not responsible for your behavior.  If you wish to unsubscribe, please just
do so and quit throwing it out as a threat or manipulation tactic.  However,
if you wish to stay, please quit threatening to unsubscribe.

Thank you,

Jeff



From edavie at verizon.net  Fri Jan 29 10:06:49 2010
From: edavie at verizon.net (Ed Davie)
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 10:06:49 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] a small private business owner
References: <98b5.170d6f3.38946924@aol.com>
Message-ID: <7A77F0E576784485B92C23C380106F85@700x>

You keep saying that but it doesn't happen!
Ed

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

> 
> END of this topic for me
> 
> The Grouch
>

From admin at jeffhowden.com  Fri Jan 29 11:27:23 2010
From: admin at jeffhowden.com (Jeff Howden)
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 11:27:23 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] spam from web browsing and privacy
In-Reply-To: <afe0.3e1ab538.38947269@aol.com>
References: <afe0.3e1ab538.38947269@aol.com>
Message-ID: <032401caa119$15e5da80$41b18f80$@com>

Jamsm,

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> From: Jamsm at aol.com
> 
> You are obviously missing an opportunity per your last
> statement for helping your customer base potentially
> advertise or report to them valuable information about
> their visitors.
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

Am I?

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> [...] Ever wonder how you acquired spam from porn sites -
> there are many ways you can  get it - but one is
> through your assigned IP address - it doesn't have to
> be from an infected email friend - all you have to have
> is to be assigned an IP  address that was recently used
> to access a porn site or the porn site may have
> broadcast the spam to random IP addresses [...]
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

That is *not* how email or IP addresses work.  There is currently no way
(without the data mining capabilities of the NSA, CIA, HS, etc.) to connect
the dots between a particular IP address and one or more valid email
addresses.  In my professional opinion, it simply doesn't exist and it is
*not* how people are getting SPAM.  Any connection between SPAM and sites
that are being visited is purely coincidental.

If you have documentation otherwise, please cite your sources.

We have a few clients that ask all the time for this type of functionality
and I've yet to ever unearth anything like you suggest is possible.

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> Do you identify where your customers' visitors might regionally
> live for your customers? You should be.
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

Of course.  That's extremely valuable information.

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> It is not fear mongering!
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

It is if the information or warnings being provided are false.

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> [...] Advertisers are gaining huge data bases on people.
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

Yes, they are.  They have been for years.  What do you think the club cards
at stores are for? Hint: they're not to give you better prices.  Those are
just incentives to get you to use them.

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> Social web sites are gaining even more personal data!
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

Yes, they are too.  The difference is the people using social web sites are
doing it voluntarily.

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> If you register at a site, which more are requiring you to do,
> then they are able to develop specific browsing habits about you. 
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

Yes, most definitely.  However, that information isn't necessarily used
nefariously.  More often than not, the company simply wants to target their
marketing more effectively.

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> If you participate in an online contest/giveaway you are likely
> submitting your data to an advertiser that is then able to gain
> intimate knowledge of your browsing habits if they are one of the
> major advertisement services.  If you do not clear your cookies
> and for better protection reset your IP address the major
> advertisers can track your web browsing habits (when you visit a
> site they advertise on) in detail and connect that to any
> information you provided them.
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

The same should be said for participating in any sort of giveaway.  The only
reason any company will do a giveaway is for all the free, valid names and
contact of individuals signing up to win something.  Companies have been
doing this for ages, long before the advent of the Internet.

However, from working with numerous ad agencies because of a few clients, I
happen to know that none of them place very much significance on IP address.
Data collected by IP address is used for non-user-specific data sets,
browsing habits, etc.  However, it is not tied to particular users or even
particular computers.  It is only mined for aggregates and regional (which
has its own caveats) information.

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> Browse safely and clear cookies often - better yet, reset your IP
> address often too but this does not need to be performed as
> frequent - dynamically assigned IP's are typically reset weekly; I
> prefer to do this more often depending on where I visit. (and I am
> not a porn user - I have taught people how to avoid such sites
> while cleaning infections.) Oh, avoid social web sites completely
> if you consider your privacy important.
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

Those are all reasonable suggestions, but they could be refined a bit.

Clear cookies often....

but only for sites that are ad networks.  Clearing cookies for sites you use
regularly will only serve to hamper your use of them (auto logging in, user
prefs at the site, etc.).

Reset your IP address often....

not because it's being used to track you, but because it's a possible attack
vector for the extremely rare hackers out there.  However, you're more
likely to get eaten by a shark while flying from one continent to another.
The reality is that there is far larger payoffs by targeting servers on the
Internet which *must* be on static IP addresses and have lots of valuable
data on them.  Further, most users are hopefully using a router on their
home connection (work too) that will thwart most any inbound attack and
antivirus on their computers to thwart the attack from the inside that'd
allow an outside attack to circumvent the firewall on the router.
Additionally, software firewalls like ZoneAlarm do not offer the same kind
of protection as a hardware firewall so don't rely on them solely and think
you're adequately protected.

Avoid social web sites....

only if you are unable to filter what you put online and are unwilling to
understand and use the privacy controls that are available on said social
web sites.  You don't have to post online every little thing you do in your
daily life.  Not everything you put online is worth data mining, but is
contextually valuable to your social connections.

Now, some additional suggestions

1) Have installed, updated, and enabled antivirus running
   at all times.
2) Never connect directly to the Internet.  Instead, always
   go through a hardware firewall (like a wireless router).
3) When setting up this firewall, turn on security for any
   WiFi connections.  Open WiFi is inviting trouble.
4) Change the default administrator password for the router
   control panel.
5) Use AdBlock Plus if you're running Firefox.  This will
   make practically all online advertising disappear and
   the privacy concerns with them.
6) Be mindful of how you use your email addresses online.
   Have at least one account you can use for dummy
   registrations for sites that require registration but
   aren't immediately obvious with their privacy policy.
   Once you find that the site is valuable and you wish to
   interact with them in a more trusting fashion, switch
   to your regular email address.
6) Be mindful of how you use passwords online.  Have one or
   more simple passwords you can use for sites that you're
   not sure you wish to return to or who haven't adequately
   defined their password storage techniques. Intentionally
   use their "forgot/reset password" tools.  If they send
   you your password via email, then make sure to use a unique
   password with this site as they don't hash [1] the passwords
   in the database and they are therefore viewable in plaintext
   for anyone that has or gets access to the database.  If they
   give you a link to reset, then most likely it's hashed
   and relatively safe.  For higher security sites like online
   banking, PayPal, etc., use a stronger password that includes
   letters (lower and upper case), numbers, and one or more
   items of punctuation (provided the site permits those
   characters).  If the site doesn't state their password storage
   policies, don't hesitate to contact them and ask.
7) Even if you're the only person that uses your computer, put
   a strong password on your login anyway.  This keeps data from
   being more difficult to compromise in the event of your computer
   being stolen.
8) Backup, backup, backup, backup.  Seriously, do it nightly. It
   can be completely automated so you don't have to touch it at all.
9) Don't assume that every site that wants to know more about you
   is doing it for nefarious reasons.  In many cases, providing a
   little bit of information about yourself can result in the
   experience being more tailored to you and the end result being
   better/more beneficial.

BTW, I appreciate how you've changed your tone in the most recent email.  It
certainly makes for more better dialog.

Jeff





From waltw at teleport.com  Fri Jan 29 11:37:17 2010
From: waltw at teleport.com (Walt Wentz)
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 11:37:17 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] a small private business owner
In-Reply-To: <98b5.170d6f3.38946924@aol.com>
References: <98b5.170d6f3.38946924@aol.com>
Message-ID: <60D48555-0DC2-4132-965E-5F5B79855055@teleport.com>

All true, in my own observation. I am among the minority who still  
reads a daily paper, even through the news is "old" by the time it  
arrives on my doorstep, as I have read much of it the day before in  
CNN's or BBC's  Websites. And yet, the Oregonian remains a top-flight  
newspaper,  with prizewinning coverage of state and national news,  
offering a wide range of national commentary and stories I don't find  
on the Internet--plus, important to me, readers' commentary and some  
favorite old comics, all conveniently bundled together in a single  
package that I can mull over comfortably at breakfast, then use as  
kindling for the next day's fire.
The paper can obviously pick its writers and staff from the most  
qualified applicants, due to its prestige-- and to the fact that the  
J-School at the University of Oregon keeps cranking out a steady  
stream of bright and hopeful young would-be journalists,  
oversupplying a declining job market.
Being college-educated and widely literate working people, the  
paper's writers and columnists are mostly progressive. Granted, I  
seldom agree with the Oregonian's "voting recommendations" prior to  
elections-- after all, the Oregonian came out for Bush II even when  
the country was already sinking into deep doo-doo, and then came out  
against  measures 66 and 67, offering the same glib and misleading  
arguments as the corporate "againsters"-- but in contemplating this  
apparent disconnect between daily progressives and election-time  
reactionaries, one has to keep in mind one important fact: The day-to- 
day operations of the paper may be handled by progressives, but the  
paper is owned by millionaires. A couple of days ago, the paper's new  
head honcho wrote a front-page article piously denying that he had  
dictated the direction of the voting recommendations, and proclaiming  
that the editorial-page editors all had an absolutely free hand.
Maybe so, but they sure do know where their paychecks are coming from.
So, while while occasionally annoyed by the more rabid spiels of  
George Will and other hidebound conservatives, and the occasional  
silliness of the most naive of the liberal commentators, I do enjoy  
the wide and mostly balanced view offered by the Oregonian,  
charitably discount its voting recommendations, and would be sorry to  
see it go extinct.

But as for the US Postal Service...
It has always had (and still has) a vital and necessary function,  
delivering personal communications, small packages and paper  
advertising-- which last, while disregarded (and discarded) by most  
patrons, is still more effective than easily-ignored images on a  
computer monitor. Despite competition from delivery services and TV,  
the USPS still enjoys a government-mandated monopoly on its  
particular niche.
So why has it been struggling for years?
In the last decade and more, e-mail, of course, has cut deeply into  
the personal-mail traffic, forcing the price of first-class stamps  
into a death spiral, even as the flood of third-class paper  
advertising increases.
But I suggest there is another reason for the troubles of the US  
Postal Service.
For more than a century, it was an actual branch of the US  
government. Then, with the "conservative" idea of getting some  
government expenditures off the books, the USPS was spun off into a  
semi-independent corporation. The American business model, trumpeted  
the administration, was superior to the bureaucratic government  
model, and would result in more efficiency, lower operating costs,  
yadda yadda yadda. And then-- long before the Internet, long before  
the proliferation of commercial delivery service-- the cost of first- 
class postage began its steady climb. During my youth--way back in  
the Stone Age, admittedly-- the standard first-class postage stamp  
was the 3-Cent Purple Washington, as it had been for many years.  
After the changeover to corporate operation, the old 3-center was  
relegated to small change, and the cost of mailing a letter began  
leapfrogging every two or three years. Somehow, the corporate economy  
and efficiency never seemed to materialize.
The problem, I suspect, was that the Postmaster-General, once a hard- 
nosed government official, was supplanted by an ever-growing flock of  
corporate CEOs, CFOs, and other C-various-Os, all pulling down huge  
salaries many times those of workers on the floor level, and whose  
corporate idea of economy was to cut from the bottom instead of the  
top. This had inevitable results on the workloads, welfare and morale  
of those who actually had to handle the mail. You may recall how the  
phrase "going postal" became popular a few years ago. There was a  
good reason.
As for the future of the USPS, I don't know what to suggest, aside  
from cutting from the top for a change, and concentrating on what the  
USPS does best-- without wasting time and money on such silly  
experiments as selling Teddy Bears and tie-tacks modeled after  
various commemorative stamps. Taking a page from Oregon's book, they  
might milk a new income stream from the gambling instinct of  
philatelists (stamp collectors), by announcing that every new  
commemorative issue (printed in the millions) would contain two or  
three examples with dramatic "errors," such as an inverted center, or  
a cigar inserted in the mouth of Florence Nightengale. The sales of  
complete sheets of new commemoratives would skyrocket. However, since  
most of those stamps, being errorless, would eventually end up being  
used on regular postage, this jump in income would be only temporary.
The original purpose of the postal service, as postulated by its  
founder, Ben Franklin, was to contribute to the welfare and knowledge  
of the American public, and strengthen the unity of the new republic,  
by disseminating newspapers, periodicals and personal mail in as  
dependable and economical a manner as possible. Inevitably, such a  
service would lose money, which had to be supported from the public  
treasury. It was an expense, but, in a free nation, a necessary one.  
So perhaps it is time to cut out the corporate overhead, concentrate  
on the original task and go back to the original government-operated  
model. That would be real "conservatism."


On Jan 29, 2010, at 8:39 AM, Jamsm at aol.com wrote:

> Given his trucks are not that great of a condition - these people
> (wholesalers) often buy used trucks and keep them running for years  
> beyond  what
> most companies would use them. Have you ever noticed one.  As a   
> courier
> business his truck maintenance would tear him apart - they are   
> old.  His racks
> probably have more value than his trucks. Also, you  ignored the  
> fact that
> delivery services are a highly competitive market that is   
> saturated. His
> business model had been around many years and he had no   
> expectations of it
> changing significantly - though I had warned him - he just  did not  
> visualize or
> realize the impact.
>
> If you took the Internet out of the picture, then the primary  
> source for
> much of the information that is supplied by newspapers would still  
> be in
> high demand via newspapers. You can disagree with that, but if you  
> look at
> what really is the major factor of destroying the newspaper  
> businesses  it goes
> back to the Internet. The newspaper sales did not decline  
> significantly
> until after the Internet went public and people started looking to the
> Internet  for information.  His sales were just fine in 1995  - as  
> several years
> passed and more people got online and more  information was created  
> online his
> sales declined.  I used to be  an avid newspaper reader, I rarely even
> glance at one now.  When was  the last time you read one as a  
> primary source of
> information?   Most people today, get their news and information  
> via TV,
> Radio to some  extent and the Internet.
>
> Sure, he made mistakes in not diversifying his business but he   
> thought  it
> would survive until he retired - it still might, but not at the   
> payoff
> levels he expected.  Over the years he did discuss some business   
> ventures but
> he never acted on them as he was comfortable making what he made  
> at  the
> time and considered the ventures too risky with low payoff.
>
> Newspapers have not been 'dying' for many years.  It has only been  
> in  the
> last 15 or so (less) years that their sales have plummeted.  As   
> people
> acquired computers and started sharing information on the Internet   
> then
> newspaper sales started declining significantly - think  editorial  
> and the other
> areas I had mentioned that were high reasons for people  buying  
> newspapers.
> Where do they go now to get that same information that  wasn't present
> before, again the Internet.  There are a number of  businesses that  
> are being
> significantly impacted by the Internet - US  Mail being one.  Much  
> of the mail
> that used to be transmitted via hard  copy and handled by US Mail  
> is now web
> based.  Advertising, Bills, Bill  paying, taxes, etc etc etc.
>
> You can claim I am playing a blame game - but not in the manner you
> originally implied - not as an excuse, but as a fact and a cause.
>
> a side note: I retired from the computer industry before you  
> started web
> development,  just putting things into perspective. (I retired  
> before the
> Internet went public.)
> I believe I understand why you consider newspapers have been dying  
> a  long
> time as you probably view 1995 a long time ago.   In  computer  
> development
> time it is; as life goes, it isn't.  I might even  venture to say  
> that there
> is a high probability that you have purchased very few  newspapers,  
> if any.
> You may have read some while in school to do  assignments and were  
> probably
> provided by the school.
>
> END of this topic for me
>
> The Grouch
>
>
> In a message dated 1/29/2010 1:37:06 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
> admin at jeffhowden.com writes:
>
>> <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
>>  From: Jamsm at aol.com
>>
>> [...] Just because you know someone that  can succeed in creating a
>> new business model does not mean everyone  else has that skill   
>> level.
>> <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
>
> I  completely agree.  However, that's what it takes to succeed in  
> a  free
> market.  You have to constantly be on top of what your customer  base
> wants/needs and be willing to evolve your business to accommodate   
> that.  If
> you're unable to do that, then maybe you shouldn't be  risking your  
> future
> on
> your inability to successfully compete. Or, hire  someone or a  
> company that
> can do that part for you and you focus on doing  whatever it is  
> about your
> business that you're really good  at/enjoy.
>
>> <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
>>  Who said he was complaining or blaming others! Only you implied  it.
>> <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
>
> I  think technically *you* were the one blaming the Internet.
>
> "yes, his  business is being destroyed by the Internet"
>
> Aside: I pictured an old  B&W with Godzilla (the Internet) crushing  
> a car.
>
> Anyway, I was  mistaken in a previous response to suggest he was  
> blaming.
> Clearly he was  not; you  were.
>
>> <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
>>  He is in the distribution of the Oregonian;  [...]
>> <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
>
> So,  business mistake #1 - relying on a single client for your  
> livelihood.
> It's  an easy mistake to make and it's certainly an easy one to get  
> suckered
> into  during prosperous times.  However, it's a colossal obstacle to
> overcome
> during difficult times.  Your success is inextricably tied to  your  
> client's
> success or demise.  You're not even really running your  own  
> business at
> that
> point.  You might as well be a wage earner.   At least as a wage  
> earner
> you'd
> be entitled to overtime pay for all the  extra hours you put in and  
> you
> might
> even get some extra benefits you  couldn't normally afford to pay  
> yourself
> (health insurance, vacation, paid  holidays,  etc.).
>
>> <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
>>  [...] Yes, he could possibly move toward  being a courier doing
>>  local delivery of packages or something like that, but that market
>> is  already heavily saturated and highly competitive.  [...]
>> <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
>
> With  a truck, there's all sorts of things he could diversify  
> into.   It's
> just a matter of getting creative and thinking outside the box.    
> There are
> companies that specialize in consulting on things like  this.
>
>> <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
>>  The Internet has changed the way the younger age get their news -
>> via  the net and radio to some extent or TV.  When was the last time
>>  you saw someone under 35, 40, or even 45 buy a  newspaper?
>> <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
>
> The  newspaper has been dying a slow death for many, many years  
> now.   I'm
> surprised you're not also blaming the environmental movement on  
> its  death
> as
> well.
>
> Even companies on the Internet are having to change  strategies  
> because
> *people* (the magical, mystical question in all of this)  are now  
> doing
> things differently.  There are scores of ad companies  that are  
> failing
> online because people surfing the web just aren't clicking  on ads  
> anymore.
> Is the Internet killing their businesses too?  No, a  change in  
> customer
> expectations and behavior is doing  it.
>
>> <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
>>  From my relatives perspective - he has thousands of dollars invested
>>  in equipment, racks, trucks etc.  [...]
>> <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
>
> The  bulk of that investment is probably in the trucks which could  be
> repurposed, possibly with little to no cost, to other  duty.
>
>> <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
>>  At one time he had two employees - for a number of  the recent   
>> years
>> he has had zero  employees.
>> <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
>
> Speaking  of business sizes and the state minimum tax.  I doubt  
> it'll even
> apply  to him as he's probably a sole proprietor.  Even if he  
> isn't  setup
> that way, I'm sure he still makes a profit that results in him  
> paying  a
> business income tax greater than $150 in which case the Measure 67   
> won't
> even kick in for him cause I'm sure he's below $500,000 in gross   
> receipts.
> Now, supposing he's under $500,000 in gross receipts and he posts
> absolutely
> no corporate income due to legitimate operating expenses, I'm  sure  
> that the
> $150 minimum tax isn't going to be the make or break for his   
> business.
>
> Jeff
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet  mailing  list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet



From admin at ronhowden.com  Fri Jan 29 12:43:04 2010
From: admin at ronhowden.com (Ron Howden)
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 12:43:04 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] a small private business owner
In-Reply-To: <60D48555-0DC2-4132-965E-5F5B79855055@teleport.com>
References: <98b5.170d6f3.38946924@aol.com>
	<60D48555-0DC2-4132-965E-5F5B79855055@teleport.com>
Message-ID: <005501caa123$a8314910$f893db30$@com>



-----Original Message-----
From: grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com [mailto:grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com] On
Behalf Of Walt Wentz
Sent: Friday, January 29, 2010 11:37 AM
To: Forest Grove local interests list
Subject: Re: [Grovenet] a small private business owner

But as for the US Postal Service...
It has always had (and still has) a vital and necessary function,  
delivering personal communications, small packages and paper  
advertising-- which last, while disregarded (and discarded) by most  
patrons, is still more effective than easily-ignored images on a  
computer monitor. Despite competition from delivery services and TV,  
the USPS still enjoys a government-mandated monopoly on its  
particular niche.
So why has it been struggling for years?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Several reasons come to mind. UPS, Fed Ex, DHL, to name a few.
The internet has cut down on letter mail. Faster.
The 3 cent stamp was for ground transport. If you wanted it to get there
sooner you bought an Airmail stamp for a few cents more.
First class pays more than the cost of mailing the letter in order to make
up for the losses of 3rd class "stuff".
Rising cost of fuel for a more mobile fleet. 1 cent at the pumps equals over
$1,000,000 in additional costs to the USPS.
Pay raises over the years from just over minimum wage to a reasonable wage
for a family to live on.
Old Postmasters were political appointments and now they are experienced
CEO's that are tasked with at least breaking even.
Old facilities that need to be replaced as well as obsolete facilities that
need to be closed.
Why do we need a full service PO in downtown Forest Grove? All we need is a
store front for buying stamps, mailing packages and PO Boxes.
In the larger picture does it really matter what the cancellation stamp
says?
Inability to close unneeded offices do to political pressure that makes it
difficult to consolidate services for efficiency. 
USPS has to serve every address in the US vs. other carriers that can be
selective who they serve and/or charging extra for a residential delivery.
My father worked for the USPS for 37 years and saw and experienced a lot of
this. He predicted the events (5 years before the first one) that we now
call "Going Postal" due to issues within the bureaucracy of the Post Office.
Does the USPS have room for improvement, Yes. Our mail system is the safest
and least expensive of any in the world to the best of my knowledge.
Not arguing with anyone, just offering a perspective.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

In the last decade and more, e-mail, of course, has cut deeply into  
the personal-mail traffic, forcing the price of first-class stamps  
into a death spiral, even as the flood of third-class paper  
advertising increases.
But I suggest there is another reason for the troubles of the US  
Postal Service.
For more than a century, it was an actual branch of the US  
government. Then, with the "conservative" idea of getting some  
government expenditures off the books, the USPS was spun off into a  
semi-independent corporation. The American business model, trumpeted  
the administration, was superior to the bureaucratic government  
model, and would result in more efficiency, lower operating costs,  
yadda yadda yadda. And then-- long before the Internet, long before  
the proliferation of commercial delivery service-- the cost of first- 
class postage began its steady climb. During my youth--way back in  
the Stone Age, admittedly-- the standard first-class postage stamp  
was the 3-Cent Purple Washington, as it had been for many years.  
After the changeover to corporate operation, the old 3-center was  
relegated to small change, and the cost of mailing a letter began  
leapfrogging every two or three years. Somehow, the corporate economy  
and efficiency never seemed to materialize.
The problem, I suspect, was that the Postmaster-General, once a hard- 
nosed government official, was supplanted by an ever-growing flock of  
corporate CEOs, CFOs, and other C-various-Os, all pulling down huge  
salaries many times those of workers on the floor level, and whose  
corporate idea of economy was to cut from the bottom instead of the  
top. This had inevitable results on the workloads, welfare and morale  
of those who actually had to handle the mail. You may recall how the  
phrase "going postal" became popular a few years ago. There was a  
good reason.
As for the future of the USPS, I don't know what to suggest, aside  
from cutting from the top for a change, and concentrating on what the  
USPS does best-- without wasting time and money on such silly  
experiments as selling Teddy Bears and tie-tacks modeled after  
various commemorative stamps. Taking a page from Oregon's book, they  
might milk a new income stream from the gambling instinct of  
philatelists (stamp collectors), by announcing that every new  
commemorative issue (printed in the millions) would contain two or  
three examples with dramatic "errors," such as an inverted center, or  
a cigar inserted in the mouth of Florence Nightengale. The sales of  
complete sheets of new commemoratives would skyrocket. However, since  
most of those stamps, being errorless, would eventually end up being  
used on regular postage, this jump in income would be only temporary.
The original purpose of the postal service, as postulated by its  
founder, Ben Franklin, was to contribute to the welfare and knowledge  
of the American public, and strengthen the unity of the new republic,  
by disseminating newspapers, periodicals and personal mail in as  
dependable and economical a manner as possible. Inevitably, such a  
service would lose money, which had to be supported from the public  
treasury. It was an expense, but, in a free nation, a necessary one.  
So perhaps it is time to cut out the corporate overhead, concentrate  
on the original task and go back to the original government-operated  
model. That would be real "conservatism."


On Jan 29, 2010, at 8:39 AM, Jamsm at aol.com wrote:

0 01:08:00



From waltw at teleport.com  Fri Jan 29 13:36:32 2010
From: waltw at teleport.com (Walt Wentz)
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 13:36:32 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] a small private business owner
In-Reply-To: <005501caa123$a8314910$f893db30$@com>
References: <98b5.170d6f3.38946924@aol.com>
	<60D48555-0DC2-4132-965E-5F5B79855055@teleport.com>
	<005501caa123$a8314910$f893db30$@com>
Message-ID: <3A6647D9-C748-429F-B352-178EB1887EA5@teleport.com>


On Jan 29, 2010, at 12:43 PM, Ron Howden wrote:

>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com [mailto:grovenet- 
> bounces at rdrop.com] On
> Behalf Of Walt Wentz
> Sent: Friday, January 29, 2010 11:37 AM
> To: Forest Grove local interests list
> Subject: Re: [Grovenet] a small private business owner
>
> But as for the US Postal Service...
> It has always had (and still has) a vital and necessary function,
> delivering personal communications, small packages and paper
> advertising-- which last, while disregarded (and discarded) by most
> patrons, is still more effective than easily-ignored images on a
> computer monitor. Despite competition from delivery services and TV,
> the USPS still enjoys a government-mandated monopoly on its
> particular niche.
> So why has it been struggling for years?
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 
> ~~~~~~
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Several reasons come to mind. UPS, Fed Ex, DHL, to name a few.
> The internet has cut down on letter mail. Faster.

Yep, yep and yep. All acknowledged below.

> The 3 cent stamp was for ground transport. If you wanted it to get  
> there
> sooner you bought an Airmail stamp for a few cents more.

Yep+4-- air mail was seven cents, as I recall. Now everything going  
farther than just down the road goes by air, except for the last few  
miles.

> First class pays more than the cost of mailing the letter in order  
> to make
> up for the losses of 3rd class "stuff".

Yep+5-- so why don't the rates for third-class advertising go up to  
cover the actual cost of delivery? Because, say the lobbyists, that  
would drive many "small businesses" out of business.  But since most  
of the wasted paper is generated by giant corporations, this claim is  
as dubious as many similar ones we've heard lately.

Periodicals and media, since they actually do contribute to public  
knowledge, would seem to deserve their special rates.

> Rising cost of fuel for a more mobile fleet. 1 cent at the pumps  
> equals over
> $1,000,000 in additional costs to the USPS.
> Pay raises over the years from just over minimum wage to a  
> reasonable wage
> for a family to live on.

A real family wage is admittedly something of a rarity in this cold era.

> Old Postmasters were political appointments and now they are  
> experienced
> CEO's that are tasked with at least breaking even.

Yep+6. Old-time postmasters also had very low pay in small towns, and  
often served through many successive administrations because nobody  
else wanted the job. It was only after they formed a national league  
of postmasters that they began attaining pay equity and some  
political power.

> Old facilities that need to be replaced as well as obsolete  
> facilities that
> need to be closed.
> Why do we need a full service PO in downtown Forest Grove? All we  
> need is a
> store front for buying stamps, mailing packages and PO Boxes.
> In the larger picture does it really matter what the cancellation  
> stamp
> says?

Nope. But you do need a sorting facility for local carriers to  
assemble their loads, and knowledgeable clerks to handle postal  
insurance, delivery confirmations, etc..

> Inability to close unneeded offices do to political pressure that  
> makes it
> difficult to consolidate services for efficiency.

Less of a problem now, i would think, since small towns have so  
little political or economic power today.

> USPS has to serve every address in the US vs. other carriers that  
> can be
> selective who they serve and/or charging extra for a residential  
> delivery.

Yep+7. But this "universal" responsibility of the USPS is also part  
of its strength. A monopoly, if you will.

> My father worked for the USPS for 37 years and saw and experienced  
> a lot of
> this. He predicted the events (5 years before the first one) that  
> we now
> call "Going Postal" due to issues within the bureaucracy of the  
> Post Office.

Yep+8.  A top-heavy business inevitably generates stress by  
overstaffed management trying to squeeze more out of an understaffed  
labor force.

> Does the USPS have room for improvement, Yes. Our mail system is  
> the safest
> and least expensive of any in the world to the best of my knowledge.
> Not arguing with anyone, just offering a perspective.

No argument there, although I have had several packages lost on their  
way to me in the past five years. But chopping out the bureaucratic  
deadwood at the national corporate level and concentrating on the  
government-mandated task would, I think, streamline the service still  
further.

>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 
> ~~~~~~
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> In the last decade and more, e-mail, of course, has cut deeply into
> the personal-mail traffic, forcing the price of first-class stamps
> into a death spiral, even as the flood of third-class paper
> advertising increases.
> But I suggest there is another reason for the troubles of the US
> Postal Service.
> For more than a century, it was an actual branch of the US
> government. Then, with the "conservative" idea of getting some
> government expenditures off the books, the USPS was spun off into a
> semi-independent corporation. The American business model, trumpeted
> the administration, was superior to the bureaucratic government
> model, and would result in more efficiency, lower operating costs,
> yadda yadda yadda. And then-- long before the Internet, long before
> the proliferation of commercial delivery service-- the cost of first-
> class postage began its steady climb. During my youth--way back in
> the Stone Age, admittedly-- the standard first-class postage stamp
> was the 3-Cent Purple Washington, as it had been for many years.
> After the changeover to corporate operation, the old 3-center was
> relegated to small change, and the cost of mailing a letter began
> leapfrogging every two or three years. Somehow, the corporate economy
> and efficiency never seemed to materialize.
> The problem, I suspect, was that the Postmaster-General, once a hard-
> nosed government official, was supplanted by an ever-growing flock of
> corporate CEOs, CFOs, and other C-various-Os, all pulling down huge
> salaries many times those of workers on the floor level, and whose
> corporate idea of economy was to cut from the bottom instead of the
> top. This had inevitable results on the workloads, welfare and morale
> of those who actually had to handle the mail. You may recall how the
> phrase "going postal" became popular a few years ago. There was a
> good reason.
> As for the future of the USPS, I don't know what to suggest, aside
> from cutting from the top for a change, and concentrating on what the
> USPS does best-- without wasting time and money on such silly
> experiments as selling Teddy Bears and tie-tacks modeled after
> various commemorative stamps. Taking a page from Oregon's book, they
> might milk a new income stream from the gambling instinct of
> philatelists (stamp collectors), by announcing that every new
> commemorative issue (printed in the millions) would contain two or
> three examples with dramatic "errors," such as an inverted center, or
> a cigar inserted in the mouth of Florence Nightengale. The sales of
> complete sheets of new commemoratives would skyrocket. However, since
> most of those stamps, being errorless, would eventually end up being
> used on regular postage, this jump in income would be only temporary.
> The original purpose of the postal service, as postulated by its
> founder, Ben Franklin, was to contribute to the welfare and knowledge
> of the American public, and strengthen the unity of the new republic,
> by disseminating newspapers, periodicals and personal mail in as
> dependable and economical a manner as possible. Inevitably, such a
> service would lose money, which had to be supported from the public
> treasury. It was an expense, but, in a free nation, a necessary one.
> So perhaps it is time to cut out the corporate overhead, concentrate
> on the original task and go back to the original government-operated
> model. That would be real "conservatism."
>
>
> On Jan 29, 2010, at 8:39 AM, Jamsm at aol.com wrote:
>
> 0 01:08:00
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet



From g-g-steele at comcast.net  Fri Jan 29 14:42:25 2010
From: g-g-steele at comcast.net (Geri)
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 14:42:25 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] A Hosstyle Greeting For You
References: <2641-4B630AF8-5275@storefull-3171.bay.webtv.net>
Message-ID: <2967D35D60FD449FA9BBC57CFACFF456@gerianehzkfhvy>

Yes, TGIF... are you 'charging' into your weekend?


 Geri


----- Original Message ----- 
From: Ole Hoss 
To: GroveNet at rdrop.com 
Sent: Friday, January 29, 2010 8:21 AM
Subject: [Grovenet] A Hosstyle Greeting For You


Hi This Greeting Is Just For You - TGIF :-
http://exclusives.250free.com/html/friday.html




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


 







--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


_______________________________________________
GroveNet mailing list
GroveNet at rdrop.com
http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet

From jo.david at verizon.net  Fri Jan 29 22:13:43 2010
From: jo.david at verizon.net (David Morelli)
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 22:13:43 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] Oregon's first sales tax
In-Reply-To: <98cb.14668c2e.3894692b@aol.com>
References: <98cb.14668c2e.3894692b@aol.com>
Message-ID: <5F9E9EC9-EB7F-445D-BE83-9651946CFB92@verizon.net>

I try diligently to avoid taking people out of context.  You wrote:
"I made no inflection that I distaste taxes - I only show distaste to taxes that target a few or do not follow the user pay strategy. Meaning - everyone  should have a reasonably equal share in the taxes"

You made three clear statements.  
1. You dislike taxes that target a few people
2. You dislike taxes that are not connected to the end user.
3. You want taxes that charge everyone a reasonably equal share. 

The problem we encounter is that there are public expenditures that only benefit a few.  e.g. Alaska's bridge to no-where.  There are public expenditures that could not be funded by the direct users.  e.g. cancer research.  So we have the option of not funding them or collecting money from a wider group.  Which you reference in your third statement.

I responded with a series of taxes that meet your first two criteria.  All of them raise money for public uses that are related to the tax source, and the taxpayers benefit from the expenditure.  All taxes do not discriminate in favor or against any beneficiaries.  All taxes are avoidable.  No one pays any of those taxes unless they choose to engage in the actions that necessitate the public expenditure.

Since I do not know you personally, I can not presume that you are not a libertarian.

If you are willing to allow that taxes for broad general benefit should be paid by broad general taxes, then you might reconsider public health coverage.  Not public health insurance,  health coverage.  Because it provides a broad general benefit.  It certainly has more public benefit than conducting a war in Iraq.  

Putting the "socialized" label on it may help solidify your response, but it doesn't really apply to all public health programs.  

For starters, we have a health care contract with our service personnel.  Is that socialized?  No.
We have a health care contract with our Native People.  Is that socialized?  No.
Our economic competitors subsidize their workers' health care, can we have a level playing field without doing the same?  That's not socialism that's supporting our exporters.
Our various states have proposals to care for the health of their citizens, shall we deny them?

It is nice to look back to having our families of 5-10 people taking care of each other.  The world is over 6 billion people.  Propose a solution that we can maintain.

David


On Jan 29, 2010, at 8:39 AM, Jamsm at aol.com wrote:

> Someone did exactly what I expected - took me out of  context!  The sentence you extracted was obviously  poorly worded (being very tired I failed to properly proof read  it) as you managed to misinterpret what I was saying and took off on a wild  tangent dissecting a select part of what I was saying. I   gave an example of a user-pay-tax to try to explain myself which you ignored....

> I do not agree to any style of taxation for broad  based health care, as they lead to the socialized health care  that the liberals so desire. Socialized health care stinks!  Health care is  not a constitutional given right.  

> Lets get back to the way organizations,  families and people in general cared for people instead of mandating  it by laws that you help those in need. I forgot,the family entity has  successfully (for the most part) been destroyed and now the liberals want  the government to be your care taker.  You can not legislate  morality  or the desire to care for others and have it be successful. 



From jo.david at verizon.net  Fri Jan 29 22:44:05 2010
From: jo.david at verizon.net (David Morelli)
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 22:44:05 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] Again, Got Concrete?
Message-ID: <13FEEDC1-4013-48F0-B19D-21A1A2A02DA7@verizon.net>

I am still looking for broken sidewalks or driveway concrete for a project.  

David


From Jamsm at aol.com  Sat Jan 30 06:58:27 2010
From: Jamsm at aol.com (Jamsm at aol.com)
Date: Sat, 30 Jan 2010 09:58:27 EST
Subject: [Grovenet] Oregon's first sales tax
Message-ID: <382d.3c060a2b.3895a313@aol.com>


It appears you think I mean A tax should meet all 3 of my  statements with 
AND AND AND  (dislike , dislike, dislike) to my  statements ... wrong.  You 
are twisting my statements - probably  purposely.  Maybe you are attempting 
to oversimplify it or just cant grasp  it or maybe you are attempting to 
bait me for some cause.  Such as,  what you alluded to below with your precious 
health care.
 
In your interpretation with 3 statements below, you left out important  
information and changed the meaning of what I said.  I gave very good clear  
descriptions in my previous email. It is obvious to me as I read through what  
you said below that you are attempting something - most likely an attempt 
to get  me to buy into your liberal health plan.  Although, I explicitly 
stated in  my previous email that I do not support it and believe (actually know 
 it) that socialized medicine stinks.
 
It appears you read with tunnel vision; seeing only what you want to  see. 
 
You attempted to 'label' me. Doing the liberal thing of classifying  
everything/everyone into nice pigeon holes that you can feed through your  
matrices for data analysis.  Liberals do not like things they can't  classify and 
group into classifications. Heaven forbid that someone might  be a free 
thinker.
 
Liberals always want a person to come up with A solution to what ever you  
are talking about so you can classify the persons political allegiance then  
attack if they do not enjoin your beliefs. 
 
Can't you accept that there are people with different ideas than yours that 
 have merit? 
Oh, that's right - the liberals can't even agree amongst themselves even  
with all sorts of pay off and pork barrel!  Even the President is  attempting 
some of the things I mentioned above.  He wants the  Republicans to join in 
the passing of heath care reform - after the liberals  blocked the 
Republicans out of discussions completely; they had  only enjoined the lobbyists and 
loyal liberals.  He can't get health care  reform without the republicans 
now.  So, he try's to set it up to blame  them when they fail to pass health 
care reform or that meets the liberal  idea of what it should be.  In his 
latest State of the Union speech he  repeatedly blamed others for his 
failures.  Enough of that empty air head.  (Respect the office - but not the man!)
 
And I do  not believe there is a clean simple solution to where we are  
today.
 
I can mention some things I do not agree to:
1). ANY new government  controlled health care in any form.
2). Mandating everyone be insured.  Look at what happened to the auto  
insurance - they claimed the auto insurance cost would go down when they  
mandated everyone to be insured and all it has done from day one is go  up.  
Another sample is Rose City Transit, Rose City Transit wanted to raise  fares. 
They were refused, they offered to sell out to the City.  - keeping  it simple 
here - Once Rose City Transit was purchased  the government immediately 
raised the rates doubling the increase that  Rose City wanted and since have 
expanded the taxes to support Tri-Met  - that is a sample of bureaucracy at 
work!
 
 
A few points that need changing:
1). AMA's restrictions on the number of  doctors.  They are a  major factor 
to the cause of the doctor shortages. 
2). Medical insurance has to have restrictions on their profit  margins.
3). Put a stop to free medical care to any people that entered or  are 
staying in our country illegally. They need to go (sent) home (meaning  their 
originating country.)  And I mean ALL! They need to reapply and  return only 
when properly allowed behind those that have or may apply to come in  legally.
4). Change U.S. birth-right to citizenship to include the parent's  
originating national country in the equation.  Coming into the  U.S. to have a baby 
so that the child is a US citizen needs to stop.
5). Restrict Golden Parachutes and the total earnings a C*O (company  
leadership) can earn.
6). Repeal the right of government employees the right  to unionize and 
hold the voters/tax payers hostage.
7). Get rid of the professional lobbyist. Ban them.
8). Give  President/Governors line item veto so perks and pork, etc. can be 
 eliminated.  This becomes less important if professional lobbyists are  
banned but would still be needed.
9). Dump PERS. Oregon specific - which I don't care about; added  to 
support the current OR residents.  
 
There, I gave you some fuel!  Ya, happy now?  Have fun  classifying me!
 
The Grouch
 
 
In a message dated 1/30/2010 1:14:48 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,  
jo.david at verizon.net writes:

I try  diligently to avoid taking people out of context.  You wrote:
"I made  no inflection that I distaste taxes - I only show distaste to 
taxes that  target a few or do not follow the user pay strategy. Meaning - 
everyone   should have a reasonably equal share in the taxes"

You made three clear  statements.  
1. You dislike taxes that target a few people
2. You  dislike taxes that are not connected to the end user.
3. You want taxes  that charge everyone a reasonably equal share. 

The problem we  encounter is that there are public expenditures that only 
benefit a few.   e.g. Alaska's bridge to no-where.  There are public 
expenditures that  could not be funded by the direct users.  e.g. cancer research.  
So  we have the option of not funding them or collecting money from a wider  
group.  Which you reference in your third statement.

I responded  with a series of taxes that meet your first two criteria.  All 
of them  raise money for public uses that are related to the tax source, 
and the  taxpayers benefit from the expenditure.  All taxes do not 
discriminate in  favor or against any beneficiaries.  All taxes are avoidable.  No  one 
pays any of those taxes unless they choose to engage in the actions that  
necessitate the public expenditure.

Since I do not know you personally,  I can not presume that you are not a 
libertarian.

If you are willing to  allow that taxes for broad general benefit should be 
paid by broad general  taxes, then you might reconsider public health 
coverage.  Not public  health insurance,  health coverage.  Because it provides a 
broad  general benefit.  It certainly has more public benefit than 
conducting a  war in Iraq.  

Putting the "socialized" label on it may help  solidify your response, but 
it doesn't really apply to all public health  programs.  

For starters, we have a health care contract with our  service personnel.  
Is that socialized?  No.
We have a health  care contract with our Native People.  Is that 
socialized?   No.
Our economic competitors subsidize their workers' health care, can we  have 
a level playing field without doing the same?  That's not socialism  that's 
supporting our exporters.
Our various states have proposals to care  for the health of their 
citizens, shall we deny them?

It is nice to  look back to having our families of 5-10 people taking care 
of each  other.  The world is over 6 billion people.  Propose a solution 
that  we can maintain.

David


On Jan 29, 2010, at 8:39 AM,  Jamsm at aol.com wrote:

> Someone did exactly what I expected - took me  out of  context!  The 
sentence you extracted was obviously   poorly worded (being very tired I failed 
to properly proof read  it) as  you managed to misinterpret what I was 
saying and took off on a wild   tangent dissecting a select part of what I was 
saying. I   gave an  example of a user-pay-tax to try to explain myself which 
you  ignored....

> I do not agree to any style of taxation for  broad  based health care, as 
they lead to the socialized health  care  that the liberals so desire. 
Socialized health care stinks!   Health care is  not a constitutional given 
right.  

> Lets  get back to the way organizations,  families and people in general 
cared  for people instead of mandating  it by laws that you help those in 
need.  I forgot,the family entity has  successfully (for the most part) been  
destroyed and now the liberals want  the government to be your care  taker.  
You can not legislate  morality  or the desire to care  for others and have 
it be successful.  


_______________________________________________
GroveNet  mailing  list
GroveNet at rdrop.com
http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet


From jo.david at verizon.net  Sat Jan 30 08:03:13 2010
From: jo.david at verizon.net (David Morelli)
Date: Sat, 30 Jan 2010 08:03:13 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] Oregon's first sales tax
In-Reply-To: <382d.3c060a2b.3895a313@aol.com>
References: <382d.3c060a2b.3895a313@aol.com>
Message-ID: <69D60C1C-83F7-4701-A51F-F0AC197250EC@verizon.net>


On Jan 30, 2010, at 6:58 AM, Jamsm at aol.com wrote:

> 
> It appears you think I mean A tax should meet all 3 of my  statements with AND AND AND  (dislike , dislike, dislike) to my  statements ... wrong.  You are twisting my statements - probably  purposely.

No, your first statement and third statement are related, the second is disjoint.  It is quite difficult to have a tax that follows "a user pay strategy" and where "everyone should have a reasonably equal share in the taxes".  A "user pay strategy" is going to be "use or loose" pre-paid insurance, "after the fact" billing, or a tax on related goods and services.  A tax where everyone has an equal share is in conflict with a user pay strategy because people do not have a reasonably equal consumption of the public expenditure.  The consumers of various public expenditures are often a minority of the taxpayers.  Or, at least, the consumption is widely varied.

For example, the owner of 100 acres near town may derive a major benefit from the expansion of the city's water supply and water infrastructure because they can develop the land at high density.  The current water users, who will be taxed for the expansion, already have sufficient water capacity.  They see no financial benefit from the development and are faced with the "blackmail" of paying for an expanded water system or seeing reduced availability of water as the new users compete for water.  

For another example, people who live on a through street near the 100 acres do not receive a benefit from the additional traffic generated by the development.  They are faced with the "blackmail" of paying for additional capacity for the city's street system or seeing increased congestion and reduced safety.

The beneficiary of the development is first and foremost the developer.  Then the purchasers of the development.  The existing resident just get the majority of the bill.  And if they refuse to pay the blackmail then they get a reduction in services.

Much is made in tax discussions about "government tightening its belt".  Unless government can restrict access to public facilities and services to those who immigrate into the community, or charge new users the marginal cost of expanding service,  general taxes are going to rise as there is growth.

Taxes are also going to rise with increased competition for resources, but that is related to general population growth and limited resources.

> ...
> A few points that need changing:
> 1). AMA's restrictions on the number of  doctors.  They are a  major factor to the cause of the doctor shortages. 
> 2). Medical insurance has to have restrictions on their profit  margins.
> 3). Put a stop to free medical care to any people that entered or  are staying in our country illegally. They need to go (sent) home (meaning  their originating country.)  And I mean ALL! They need to reapply and  return only when properly allowed behind those that have or may apply to come in  legally.
> 4). Change U.S. birth-right to citizenship to include the parent's  originating national country in the equation.  Coming into the  U.S. to have a baby so that the child is a US citizen needs to stop.
> 5). Restrict Golden Parachutes and the total earnings a C*O (company leadership) can earn.
> 6). Repeal the right of government employees the right  to unionize and hold the voters/tax payers hostage.
> 7). Get rid of the professional lobbyist. Ban them.
> 8). Give  President/Governors line item veto so perks and pork, etc. can be eliminated.  This becomes less important if professional lobbyists are banned but would still be needed.
> 9). Dump PERS. Oregon specific - which I don't care about; added  to support the current OR residents.  

I can agree with some of those.  Although it will require giving the government the authority to "void" contracts, even those contracts where the government is not a primary party.  And it would require the government to examine the books of private corporations.  

It would require changing some long standing legal decisions as well.  

For #4, go with the parents citizenship or immigration status.  The children of naturalized foreigners should be American.

David


From NoSpam03 at comcast.net  Sat Jan 30 09:23:43 2010
From: NoSpam03 at comcast.net (Steven)
Date: Sat, 30 Jan 2010 09:23:43 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] Oregon's first sales tax
In-Reply-To: <69D60C1C-83F7-4701-A51F-F0AC197250EC@verizon.net>
References: <382d.3c060a2b.3895a313@aol.com>
	<69D60C1C-83F7-4701-A51F-F0AC197250EC@verizon.net>
Message-ID: <000001caa1d0$fb072760$f1157620$@net>

What are taxes for? Some want to tax junk food as a deterrent. In that case,
business tax is to deter business in the state.
If taxes are to encourage activity, the tax encourages businesses to sell
less; individuals to make less.
So should taxes be social engineering or revenue generating?
Why not tax business for selling products made outside Oregon? This would
create more jobs in state. 



From waltw at teleport.com  Sat Jan 30 10:13:17 2010
From: waltw at teleport.com (Walt Wentz)
Date: Sat, 30 Jan 2010 10:13:17 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] Oregon's first sales tax
In-Reply-To: <000001caa1d0$fb072760$f1157620$@net>
References: <382d.3c060a2b.3895a313@aol.com>
	<69D60C1C-83F7-4701-A51F-F0AC197250EC@verizon.net>
	<000001caa1d0$fb072760$f1157620$@net>
Message-ID: <6DA721E4-3B87-4C26-9F29-788B7AEF9B5E@teleport.com>

Following that line of reasoning, why not legalize heroin, allow  
public advertising for heroin, and allow the glamorized depiction of  
heroin in kids' Saturday morning cartoons, all for the purpose of  
"encouraging business?" And if we then began taxing heroin sales,  
certainly that would be "social engineering," wouldn't it? At first  
we'd have a thriving "business" or "industry," but then a heavy  
enough tax would drive heroin sales underground, and we would be back  
where we started.
The problem with absolutist reasoning (e.g. the absolute rejection of  
"social engineering") is that it leads quickly to untenable conclusions.

On Jan 30, 2010, at 9:23 AM, Steven wrote:

> What are taxes for? Some want to tax junk food as a deterrent. In  
> that case,
> business tax is to deter business in the state.
> If taxes are to encourage activity, the tax encourages businesses  
> to sell
> less; individuals to make less.
> So should taxes be social engineering or revenue generating?
> Why not tax business for selling products made outside Oregon? This  
> would
> create more jobs in state.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet



From hannah at teleport.com  Sat Jan 30 11:07:42 2010
From: hannah at teleport.com (Kristy Gravlin)
Date: Sat, 30 Jan 2010 13:07:42 -0600
Subject: [Grovenet] Oregon's first sales tax
In-Reply-To: <000001caa1d0$fb072760$f1157620$@net>
Message-ID: <C789DF9E.12E39%hannah@teleport.com>




On 1/30/10 11:23 AM, "Steven" <NoSpam03 at comcast.net> wrote:

> Some want to tax junk food as a deterrent.

It's worked well for cigarettes.
And even for gasoline.

Hasn't it?

Kristy




From Jamsm at aol.com  Sat Jan 30 11:50:59 2010
From: Jamsm at aol.com (Jamsm at aol.com)
Date: Sat, 30 Jan 2010 14:50:59 EST
Subject: [Grovenet] Oregon's first sales tax
Message-ID: <ac11.7fbbd2e6.3895e7a3@aol.com>

Apparently, you like the government social  engineering.
Let's put a special tax on Homosexuals!  That will discourage  that 
practice, just raise the tax high enough!
 
The Grouch
 
 
In a message dated 1/30/2010 2:08:02 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,  
hannah at teleport.com writes:




On 1/30/10 11:23 AM, "Steven"  <NoSpam03 at comcast.net> wrote:

> Some want to tax junk food as  a deterrent.

It's worked well for cigarettes.
And even for  gasoline.

Hasn't  it?

Kristy



_______________________________________________
GroveNet  mailing  list
GroveNet at rdrop.com
http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet


From Jamsm at aol.com  Sat Jan 30 11:51:08 2010
From: Jamsm at aol.com (Jamsm at aol.com)
Date: Sat, 30 Jan 2010 14:51:08 EST
Subject: [Grovenet] Foriegn Nationals WAS .. Re:  Oregon's first sales tax
Message-ID: <ac1b.42b06846.3895e7ac@aol.com>

Yes, you are misinterpreting what I am saying in regards to what I said  
about taxes.
 
As for the legal changes needed for some of things I listed, I do not  
believe the government would need to see the 'books'.  More a matter  of 
requiring 'filings' that shows what benefits select top level business  positions 
are receiving.  Similar to what politicians currently  do.  Possibly, with 
caps based on a company's Net Earnings.
 
Long standing legal decisions can be changed, of course with due  care, 
such that, the government is not controlling the businesses  or opens a 
different 'can of worms.'  Some businesses  need restrictions and limitations, but 
this needs to be done  carefully.
 
 And on #4:  You appear to be in agreement  - Naturalized  citizens are not 
foreign nationals,  they are legally citizens. Free  passes (pardons or 
whatever you want to call it) to citizenship should not be  allowed as that 
just increases the number of people entering the country  illegally to wait for 
the next round of a free path to U.S.  citizenship.   Giving citizenship to 
the parents of a child born here  should never be allowed.  You don't want 
to encourage marriage to a  U.S. citizen to gain citizenship either, this 
needs to be restrictive to  avoid its abuse.  Birth-right restrictions to 
citizenship could also be  done retroactive, of course, within reason!

Some of the people that entered the U.S., illegally have  established 
themselves with employment, homes and businesses.  They did  this while being 
here illegally.  Thus, being 'kicked out' may cause  them a hardship or a 
financial loss. Tough!  That weighs in as part of  the penalty for having stayed 
(or entered) the  U.S. illegally.  They can either sell their home, 
business, etc or try  to maintain it from their 'home' country with hopes of 
returning.  As a  means to help pay for sending these people home, we could also 
apply hefty  'fine's on them; thus taking away the business or homes  
(fined/confiscation/penalty to be auctioned off, maybe after a short  time to allow 
them time [chance] to try sell it at market  value) to help pay for 
returning these people (and others of their  kind) to their originating countries.  
When sent 'home' they can take  their children with them. No reason to claim 
we are breaking up families.   Those that have naturalized relations here 
are not being separated from  their families any more than those that come 
here legally and leave family  members behind in their originating country, it 
is THEIR CHOICE.  The  ones with children that are declared naturalized or 
are birth-right citizens  have the CHOICE to take their children with them; 
we should make it a  requirement that those children leave with their 
parents, if they are under a  specific age (becoming a quasi citizen - this would 
effect a limited number  of them.)  These children would be allowed to 
return to the U.S.  as citizens when they become a specified age, say 18, 19 or  
21.  An age, such that, they are able to care for themselves.
 
Also, to reduce the opportunity for the future people coming/staying here  
illegally, the rules for green cards need to be greatly tightened.  I have  
seen where a business will open a plant specifically in rural areas where 
they  know  there will not be a sufficient work force to purposely allow them 
to  use the current system to get green-cards. [And they often pay  (include 
benefits etc.) those employees less than they would  otherwise.]
 
Another technique I have seen, is to create the want-ad that is required  
for a position that they wish to fill with a green-card is written in such  
away that no one applies for the job other than the person they are 
attempting  to get the green card for. This technique is frequently used in  
professional / engineering positions. It may even be used in other levels of  
employment - think manufacturing. Sample of professional abuse: Student comes  
here to go to school (likely supplemented with our  tax dollars), then  gets a 
summer/intern job. When they graduate, they are supposed to  take their new 
skills back to their country to benefit their country.   Instead, the 
employer comes to their rescue and helps them get a green-card  using very 
restrictive want-ads describing a job for that individual.
 
I suspect our military is loaded (I really do not know how many - it  would 
be an interesting number to find out though) with foreign nationals  using 
the military service as a means to become naturalized citizens.   Maybe, 
more should consider this as an avenue to become citizens. I have  mixed 
feelings about this, I like it; but, there should be a limit in the number  they 
allow to use this (maybe there is.)  We should also return  to a draft 
lottery to get away from using the Guard, etc. as regulars. They were  never 
intended to be used in the manner they are today.
 
The English language should be made the language of the U.S.   English is 
already the de facto language of the business environment  of the world.  We 
need to stop catering to the Spanish speaking people with  everything 
printed / announced in multiple languages (a huge  expense.)  Possibly, add a 
requirement that you must read and write  English with proficiency (not a 
minimum where one barely understands the  language) to vote!  In Beaverton, a 
company started by Nike is operating a  sweat-shop (low pay & no benefits). They 
have signs posted all over the  place that English is to be used on the 
manufacturing floor, but it isn't;  they even make the announcements over the 
PA system in Spanish (no English  used.) Can you imagine how bad it is in 
places such as S. Florida, parts of  Texas and areas of other border states! I 
have met people that vacationed in S.  Florida tell me they were treated 
very rudely because they do not know or  understand Spanish.  I understand that 
in some of these areas you can't get  a job unless you speak and understand 
Spanish.
 
Enough ranting - have fun,
The Grouch
 
 
 
In a message dated 1/30/2010 11:06:18 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,  
jo.david at verizon.net writes:


On  Jan 30, 2010, at 6:58 AM, Jamsm at aol.com wrote:

> 
> It appears  you think I mean A tax should meet all 3 of my  statements 
with AND AND  AND  (dislike , dislike, dislike) to my  statements ... wrong.   
You are twisting my statements - probably  purposely.

No, your  first statement and third statement are related, the second is 
disjoint.   It is quite difficult to have a tax that follows "a user pay 
strategy" and  where "everyone should have a reasonably equal share in the 
taxes".  A  "user pay strategy" is going to be "use or loose" pre-paid insurance, 
"after  the fact" billing, or a tax on related goods and services.  A tax 
where  everyone has an equal share is in conflict with a user pay strategy 
because  people do not have a reasonably equal consumption of the public  
expenditure.  The consumers of various public expenditures are often a  minority 
of the taxpayers.  Or, at least, the consumption is widely  varied.

For example, the owner of 100 acres near town may derive a  major benefit 
from the expansion of the city's water supply and water  infrastructure 
because they can develop the land at high density.  The  current water users, who 
will be taxed for the expansion, already have  sufficient water capacity.  
They see no financial benefit from the  development and are faced with the 
"blackmail" of paying for an expanded water  system or seeing reduced 
availability of water as the new users compete for  water.  

For another example, people who live on a through street  near the 100 
acres do not receive a benefit from the additional traffic  generated by the 
development.  They are faced with the "blackmail" of  paying for additional 
capacity for the city's street system or seeing  increased congestion and 
reduced safety.

The beneficiary of the  development is first and foremost the developer.  
Then the purchasers of  the development.  The existing resident just get the 
majority of the  bill.  And if they refuse to pay the blackmail then they 
get a reduction  in services.

Much is made in tax discussions about "government  tightening its belt".  
Unless government can restrict access to public  facilities and services to 
those who immigrate into the community, or charge  new users the marginal 
cost of expanding service,  general taxes are  going to rise as there is growth.

Taxes are also going to rise with  increased competition for resources, but 
that is related to general population  growth and limited resources.

> ...
> A few points that need  changing:
> 1). AMA's restrictions on the number of  doctors.   They are a  major 
factor to the cause of the doctor shortages. 
>  2). Medical insurance has to have restrictions on their profit   margins.
> 3). Put a stop to free medical care to any people that  entered or  are 
staying in our country illegally. They need to go (sent)  home (meaning  
their originating country.)  And I mean ALL! They  need to reapply and  return 
only when properly allowed behind those that  have or may apply to come in  
legally.
> 4). Change U.S.  birth-right to citizenship to include the parent's  
originating national  country in the equation.  Coming into the  U.S. to have a 
baby so  that the child is a US citizen needs to stop.
> 5). Restrict Golden  Parachutes and the total earnings a C*O (company 
leadership) can earn.
>  6). Repeal the right of government employees the right  to unionize and  
hold the voters/tax payers hostage.
> 7). Get rid of the professional  lobbyist. Ban them.
> 8). Give  President/Governors line item veto  so perks and pork, etc. can 
be eliminated.  This becomes less important  if professional lobbyists are 
banned but would still be needed.
> 9).  Dump PERS. Oregon specific - which I don't care about; added  to 
support  the current OR residents.  

I can agree with some of those.   Although it will require giving the 
government the authority to "void"  contracts, even those contracts where the 
government is not a primary  party.  And it would require the government to 
examine the books of  private corporations.  

It would require changing some long  standing legal decisions as well.  

For #4, go with the parents  citizenship or immigration status.  The 
children of naturalized  foreigners should be  American.

David




From jo.david at verizon.net  Sat Jan 30 13:33:09 2010
From: jo.david at verizon.net (David Morelli)
Date: Sat, 30 Jan 2010 13:33:09 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] Oregon's first sales tax
In-Reply-To: <C789DF9E.12E39%hannah@teleport.com>
References: <C789DF9E.12E39%hannah@teleport.com>
Message-ID: <6569EB50-91F1-40EE-A726-AB1930C91078@verizon.net>

Well, at least it has driven all of the gas stations and cigarette seller out of Oregon.

And the beer and alcohol tax has driven all the taverns, bars and retail sellers out of business.

Wait.  Let me check on the numbers before we go to press with this information.  There may be a few sellers still in business because I do recall seeing someone smoking yesterday...

smile
David

On Jan 30, 2010, at 11:07 AM, Kristy Gravlin wrote:

> 
> 
> 
> On 1/30/10 11:23 AM, "Steven" <NoSpam03 at comcast.net> wrote:
> 
>> Some want to tax junk food as a deterrent.
> 
> It's worked well for cigarettes.
> And even for gasoline.
> 
> Hasn't it?
> 
> Kristy
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet




From jo.david at verizon.net  Sat Jan 30 13:52:09 2010
From: jo.david at verizon.net (David Morelli)
Date: Sat, 30 Jan 2010 13:52:09 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] Foriegn Nationals WAS .. Re: Oregon's first sales tax
In-Reply-To: <ac1b.42b06846.3895e7ac@aol.com>
References: <ac1b.42b06846.3895e7ac@aol.com>
Message-ID: <214466B1-8B28-4414-BFEF-9CFD5EC681D3@verizon.net>


On Jan 30, 2010, at 11:51 AM, Jamsm at aol.com wrote:

> ...
> As for the legal changes needed for some of things I listed, I do not  believe the government would need to see the 'books'.  More a matter  of requiring 'filings' that shows what benefits select top level business  positions are receiving.  Similar to what politicians currently  do.  Possibly, with caps based on a company's Net Earnings.

It might be easier to amend the IRS regulations to put a limit on the amount that a company could claim as salary expenses per individual.  Let's say three times the median income of employees.  Anything beyond that is considered as "profit sharing" and would be subject to the usual corporate tax.

You describe some "shady" business practices.  I suspect that you are very accurate in the description.  Just remember these are not government agencies doing the dirty deeds, they are businesses.  

The suggestion that laws could be changed retroactively, especially laws that have criminal or civil punishments is alien to the Constitution, which prohibits "ex-post facto" laws.

The military observations is interesting.  I do support mandatory, universal military training as a pre-condition to inheritance or property rights.  

David




From waltw at teleport.com  Sat Jan 30 18:15:02 2010
From: waltw at teleport.com (Walt Wentz)
Date: Sat, 30 Jan 2010 18:15:02 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] Oregon's first sales tax
In-Reply-To: <C789DF9E.12E39%hannah@teleport.com>
References: <C789DF9E.12E39%hannah@teleport.com>
Message-ID: <32BD4C40-6D68-43C8-B34D-C2202E099274@teleport.com>

Hey, yeah, and you forget how well Prohibition worked for booze, too!

On Jan 30, 2010, at 11:07 AM, Kristy Gravlin wrote:

>
>
>
> On 1/30/10 11:23 AM, "Steven" <NoSpam03 at comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> Some want to tax junk food as a deterrent.
>
> It's worked well for cigarettes.
> And even for gasoline.
>
> Hasn't it?
>
> Kristy
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet