2012 conventions 2012 election 2013 session 2013 special election arts arts and culture author ballot measures bomb books budget bullying business charlie hales children clackamas climate change coal courts crime culture culture club democrats drugs economy education environment family film fluoride food gay rights guns handguns health health care health insurance high school history housing immigration international internet kitzhaber law legislature lgbt literary arts living marijuana medicine mental health military minor parties mohamed mohamud movies music native americans news newspaper obama olympics oregon our town parenting pers photography police politcs politics port portland portland business journal portland mayor president prevention public safety religion republicans rnc romney rural salem sam adams sandy hook schools science shooting sports suicide supreme court taxes television terrorism theater third parties timber payments transportation union university of oregon violence washington water wildfire women

I am repeaedly suprised to see that everyone who supports "socking these funds away" also are saying that we need to spend more money.  Do we really think that if the money is there that it won't be spent.

This will not lead to a rainy day fund.

Schools need to budget ahead like eveyone else.  I have to live within my income level.  If the school needs more money, then budget for more money. 

This kicker is money beyond the projected budget so, make sure the budget is correct to begin with.

posted 4 years, 3 months ago
view in context

The budget is the process of planning ahead.  That is their job..In a day when we, the people, are in dire straights and are required to get by wihtoout a rainy day fund because our resources have been spent compensating for economic downturns why shoould our regulators (that means the people who are charged with regulating) be given a way to live outside their projected budget.

posted 4 years, 3 months ago
view in context

Wait a minute.  These are not guesses, they are based on what we need.  these are projected budgets.  I have worked in the capacity of manager and budgeting is what we all do.  Budgets are based on the needs that are projected into the next year.  This is not some random number thrown into the mix.

posted 4 years, 3 months ago
view in context

So...who are we trying to fool here.  Since when, when the gov't got the opportunity to control the purse strings, have they not found somewhere to spend it.

I agree that we are in dire steights here but the predicted amounts shoould be real, not presumed.  As soon as they start playing with presumed numbers it just opens the door to gradual freedoms that are not regulated.

These funds are, by definition, an exess and belong to the people.  The legislators need to be accountable for funds received and need to live within the stated budget as it is passed.

Bruce Sickles-Falls City, Oregon

posted 4 years, 3 months ago
view in context

The most essential ingredient to change is to shake people out of their habitual patterns. They need to change how they do things so they can change how they see things.

Barack Obama has the advantage that main street has been forced to change because of recent economical and social perspectives. Now he needs to shake up the house and senate. They need to be removed from the "business as usual" mindset and taken into a new direction. I suspect that he can do this by the removal of the lobbyist from our political process. A legislture that operates under their own conscience without the benefit of backscratching and kickbacks would be such a change as to force our lawmakers to operate (hopefully) with a degree of moral courage.

posted 4 years, 7 months ago
view in context

The definition of an old growth is simple. "A forest that is self sustaining". One thing I know is that management is not the answer. Forests survive just fine without us..The biscuit fire will recover by itself. Old growth forests are not impacted by wildfires. Managed forests are subject to wildfire because they encourage undergrowth witch in turn fuels the fire. In the forests where I like to walk you can see where the fires have come through and the scars are minimal.

I also used to work in the woods. One of the chores we were assigned by the management team was to clean the creeks after logging. A HUGE MISTAKE! It destroyed the fish habitat. To think that we know more than nature is egotistical at best. We need to stand in awe of what is our legacy.

posted 4 years, 7 months ago
view in context

I have neither scientific nor socio-economic interests in the old-growth forest issue but I have spent a lot of time walking in old growth. There are a few areas that were set aside by people with passion and insight and allowed me the opportunity to experience a real forest for which I am endlessly indebted to them. There is no cathedral so breathtaking and alive.

I have seen where these forests survived wildfire because there is no underbrush to encourage the fire. A few minor scars that are survivable. So...

My thoughts are that a forest has to survive the developmental stage to become an old growth (without intervention or population) and we need more of them. I live in forestry areas and have worked in the reforestation industry but I feel we need to show some responsibility to the future and not just look at the economic returns. It's time for us, as a population, to slow down and enjoy our world. An old growth forest is alive. A managed forest is a dead thing that ruins the sense of growth and renewal.

posted 4 years, 7 months ago
view in context

I'm listening to Micheal right now and he is dead on. Two years ago it became evident to me that I don't want to borrow any money. You have to be insane to want to go into debt at this time. Isn't it there-by obvious that propping up the lending institutions is a moot point. Interest based economies only exist through speculation. The solution must come from goods based economies.

posted 4 years, 7 months ago
view in context