Oregon Senate Cancels Saturday Session Amid Reports of Militia Groups Protesting at Capitol

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by Egoboy, Jun 21, 2019.

  1. 9royhobbs

    9royhobbs Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2015
    Messages:
    6,094
    Likes Received:
    1,420
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Well since you didn't disagree with the reason for the tax, just the tax........what is your plan? If you have something better than nothing, I'm listening.
     
  2. vman12

    vman12 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2015
    Messages:
    48,286
    Likes Received:
    29,171
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You just picked literally the worst example for the EPA and Democrats when you added "Flint".
     
  3. vman12

    vman12 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2015
    Messages:
    48,286
    Likes Received:
    29,171
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Oh I dunno. Tax credits for companies who use less fuel?

    But then the point isn't to "save the environment", it's for Democrats to tax everyone into prosperity.
     
  4. Thought Criminal

    Thought Criminal Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2017
    Messages:
    12,685
    Likes Received:
    8,311
    Trophy Points:
    113

    OK. I just don't understand where you're having difficulty.
     
  5. 9royhobbs

    9royhobbs Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2015
    Messages:
    6,094
    Likes Received:
    1,420
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Why is that
     
  6. vman12

    vman12 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2015
    Messages:
    48,286
    Likes Received:
    29,171
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So you don't know about the EPA's role in the Flint water crisis then.
     
  7. DavidMK

    DavidMK Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2015
    Messages:
    1,859
    Likes Received:
    296
    Trophy Points:
    83
    That was developed by the Heritage Foundation. 'Obama'care was basically the Dems (who wanted Single Payer) conceding the debate to the Repubs.
     
  8. ImNotOliver

    ImNotOliver Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2014
    Messages:
    8,506
    Likes Received:
    2,070
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I'm pretty sure that the increase to gas is going to be only about 20 cents.

    Anyhow what you are expressing is essentially the same argument that opponents to environmental protections always make. And time and time again they have been proven false. Those states with the most stringent environmental laws and regulations have robust economies, tending to do better than the national average. Take for instance Colorado, California, Oregon, and Washington. All have perhaps the most stringent environmental laws, yet all four do quite well economically.

    Look here for the economic rankings of the above four states:
    https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/rankings/economy/growth

    In fact, the requirement for less energy usage, has led to technological advancements, that we all benefit from. Imagine what it would be like if everyone was still driving around cars that got 10 miles per gallon, with today's prices. By requiring car companies to make more fuel efficient and less polluting cars, we all have benefited in lower overall fuel costs and cleaner air.

    The cap and tax limit, I think, is 25,000 metric tons per year. An average over the road truck, that runs year round, produces about 20 metric tons.

    In Colorado a typical wheat farm is a dry land farm. Thus only half of the land is farmed a year while the other half rests. Thus on a thousand acre farm 500 acres are farmed a year. A single person with a single tractor, and the proper implements could easily plow and prep the field in a couple of weeks, and seed and fertilize in the next two. Depending on the quality of one's fields, a pass or two a season might be needed to weed and spray. At harvest time a single combine, with a truck to collect and transport, can harvest the field in a couple of weeks. The grain is either stored in an elevator for optimal price times, or sold directly to a co-op or buyer, which usually is pumped into train cars and taken away. Then a week or two will be spent either collecting the stalks as straw for domesticated animals, or plowing it into the soil, in prep for the next growing cycle. Thus by Colorado standards, which I am quite familiar with, a thousand acre wheat farm would be using heavy machinery for 10 weeks out of a year. And considering an over the road truck, driving year round, produces 20 metric tons a year, it is highly doubtful that a thousand acre wheat farm could come close to the 25,000 metric ton limit.

    Awhile back, maybe in the 80's, Colorado passed a similar law. Nothing really changed for the average person. The biggest deal people made, was the fact that one could sell an old broken down car to large polluters, and by them destroying the old cars, they could claim carbon credits, as if those cars would have otherwise been on the road with their engines running. It cleaned up a lot of yards around the Denver/Boulder area. It caused a shortage of old cars, driving up the prices of recently used cars. But it was temporary and soon no one noticed anything. Except now, there is less pollution in Colorado than there otherwise would have been.

    John Inslee, the governor of Washington, in his presidential bid, has been making the claim that it is environmental protections, that have made the Pacific Northwest such an economic powerhouse. I doubt his chances of winning the presidency are very high, but he is interesting to listen to.
     
  9. ImNotOliver

    ImNotOliver Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2014
    Messages:
    8,506
    Likes Received:
    2,070
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Let's put this in perspective.
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]

    You see, even though Oregon is the country's top producer of lumber and Christmas trees, that segment of the economy is all but insignificant. Wine producers may be making more money these days.

    In Colorado it was the realization that tourism paid better than logging that many restrictions were put in place. Oregon, as a matter of pride has a rather pristine coastline, and the laws to keep it that way.

    The rest of the country should be grateful for the environmental protections of the Pacific Northwest. We are upwind from everyone else. Our wind does not stink.
     
  10. Nunya D.

    Nunya D. Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2010
    Messages:
    9,165
    Likes Received:
    1,765
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Taxes ARE a form of regulation. If you do not understand the correlation between regulations, taxes, and cheap labor, then we really can not have an honest discussion. These are NOT separate entities. They are all interconnected. They all impact business.

    As a simplex example, a business could accept the regulations, but the when combined with expensive labor and/or higher taxes, something has to give. Or, they could accept paying higher wages, but combined with the cost of regulations/taxes makes business difficult. There are also regulations that cause labor to become more expensive.....or they increase taxes...or they increase overhead....or....

    It is never one thing that kills a business. It is all the things combined. Bottom line, a company is going to use every options that will increase their profit margin. If moving overseas allows one to increase their profit margin and that increase offsets the cost to move over-seas, then do not be surprised when they move over-seas. To expect a person to point at a company and say "regulations made them move over-seas", is pretty unrealistic.
     
  11. Nunya D.

    Nunya D. Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2010
    Messages:
    9,165
    Likes Received:
    1,765
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Do you realize that your second pie chart is from the "Foreign Trade Division" and only accounts for overseas trade and not national trade?
     
  12. Xenamnes

    Xenamnes Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2015
    Messages:
    19,494
    Likes Received:
    5,550
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Increasing taxes on fuel that is needed now, to motivate switching to an energy source that does not exist, is not a viable course of action to try and save the environment. Until such time that alternative sources of energy and fuel exist, that are economically sound, reliable, and actually clean when compared to fossil fuels, increasing taxes on the fuel that does exist and is used serves no legitimate purpose and does nothing but cause more harm, not less.

    It was proven the pollution resulting from electric vehicles is just as bad, if not even worse, than the pollution that comes from motor vehicles that use the internal combustion engine, due to the efforts involved in extracting the elements needed to produce the batteries, the fact the batteries must be charged and increasing demand on power plants as a result, and the eventual disposal of the batteries when they no longer hold a charge, all add up to more pollution, not less. The so-called environmentally friendly advantage was proven to be nothing more than an outright lie.

    Come back when you actually have something of legitimacy to contribute. Until then you have nothing other than the claim that paying a few cents more for each gallon of fuel is all it takes to save the environment and undo all the damage being done by modern industry.
     
    BuckyBadger and Nunya D. like this.
  13. Lee S

    Lee S Moderator Staff Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2012
    Messages:
    8,215
    Likes Received:
    687
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Most foods outlets make it a priority to obtain locally sourced foods. Looking at exports for food is not the whole story since Oregon consumes a large percentage of its own agriculture products. Even though they are locally sourced, they still need to be sown, harvested and trucked to market.

    Most trucking companies have more than one truck, so 20k metric tons per truck times the number of trucks in the fleet are going to put any trucking company into the cap and trade if they own more than one truck. The $5.60 per gallon tax of fuel by 2030 is a number that the Democrats came up with, the people who wrote the bill, and presumably the ones who are trying to downplay the repercussions of the legislature. The twenty cents a gallon estimate were the additional fuel cost was the predicted minimum for 2019 till mid 2020 and that tax will only go up once carbon credits are used up.

    As for the impact on the typical farmer, I can only tell you that I feel you are grossly underestimating the fuel required to run even a modest farm. I run a very small farm with a very specialized product and my fuel consumption is close to putting me in the cap and trade. Unfortunately, what I grow is so highly regulated it is not possible to simply stop growing my crop. Also, if I don't use that fuel, people will die. True story.

    Also, I would like to point out that when Oregon made a concerted effort to kill logging, we (rural Oregonians) were told that eco-tourism would more than make up for the loss of logging revenue. That turned out to be a ridiculous over-estimation. Tourism came nowhere near replacing lost revenues in Molalla, Banks, Chemault, and hundreds of other logging dependent towns.
     
    Last edited: Jun 25, 2019
  14. Nunya D.

    Nunya D. Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2010
    Messages:
    9,165
    Likes Received:
    1,765
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It appears that the bill is Dead in the Water. According to Democrats, they no longer have enough votes to pass HB 2020, even if the Republicans return to Salem.

    https://www.kptv.com/news/senate-pr...cle_30d2d876-b1cd-5942-8815-ddd06187ac97.html

    I'm guessing the protest by truckers, loggers, farmers, and just average people that took to the Capitol steps (who the media lumped all as militia groups) influenced some of the Democrats to rethink their position.
     
    Last edited: Jun 25, 2019
    Lee S likes this.
  15. Lee S

    Lee S Moderator Staff Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2012
    Messages:
    8,215
    Likes Received:
    687
    Trophy Points:
    113
    This may be great news! I hope there really isn't enough votes and this isn't simply a ploy to get the Republicans back so they will have a quorum. Of course, there is no precedent of good faith in this legislative session. If I were the Republicans, I would still stay away.
     
    Nunya D. likes this.
  16. Space_Time

    Space_Time Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2015
    Messages:
    6,009
    Likes Received:
    642
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The WSJ is ordinarily a pay site but this one isn't asking for login credentials so I'll post it, hopefully everyone else can see it:

     
    Last edited: Jun 25, 2019
  17. 9royhobbs

    9royhobbs Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2015
    Messages:
    6,094
    Likes Received:
    1,420
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I didn't say that, I was interested in your version.
     
  18. 9royhobbs

    9royhobbs Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2015
    Messages:
    6,094
    Likes Received:
    1,420
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I do understand the correlation but here's the thing
    Taxes are taxes...period. Regulations are regulations....period. Labor is labor.....period. Using your logic labor is a regulation. Since we both have said that the bottom line is the profit margin, I'm thinking we agree but I feel that corporations don't give a crap about people, towns, cities or country in that relentless pursuit whereas you seem to be ok with it. Hardly MAGA.
     
  19. ImNotOliver

    ImNotOliver Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2014
    Messages:
    8,506
    Likes Received:
    2,070
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The cap is the equivalent of 1250 trucks.

    Anyhow, even though I am a Green, I do not like the whole cap and trade idea at all. It seems to me to be a whole lot of mess for no real benefit.

    Oregon really doesn't have any industry that emits a lot of carbon. Most of Oregon's pollution problems are with metal and glass fabricators, who spill toxic chemicals, not carbon smoke. Depending on whose chart one looks at, either transportation or the forest industry pollute the most. But Oregon's pollution is so low that it would not be all that noticeable in most other states.

    The thing about Oregon is that we have more trees, and more tree mass than any other state. (for those who want to argue, I should point out that acres don't equal trees. I have been all over the US and no other state has a more dense concentration of large trees than Oregon. Washington is in second, by a stride or two.) The science behind global warming tells us that the tree and agricultural plant yields should increase in Oregon. Sure enough, with every increase in the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, tree growth and agricultural yields have increased. The wine industry and the budding marijuana industry have greatly benefited from global warming. The thing about CO2 is that in the autumn, when the leaves fall and deteriorate, they give up their CO2 to the atmosphere. However, Oregon's lumber industry is mostly fir or spruce. Trees that don't seasonally shed their leaves, or needles. A study by the State University and the University of Idaho have concluded that if loggers let trees grow five to ten years longer, the CO2 would be absorbed at a greater rate. Maybe I should not say this, but global warming models tend to look favorably to Oregon, Wyoming too. Notice that we haven't been hit by the storms that have been punishing the rest of the country over the past few years.

    None the less, as far CO2 goes, it is mostly cars. I think that if they put another bridge over the Columbia, that it would greatly reduce auto emissions. It seems that a lot of people slowly crawl over the two existing bridges at rush hour time, clogging streets on both sides.
     
    Lee S likes this.
  20. 9royhobbs

    9royhobbs Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2015
    Messages:
    6,094
    Likes Received:
    1,420
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ok, so you've go nothing.
    You're electric/pollution argumenxt is empty. It's brought to by the same people that that say climate change doesn't exist and that friend of the environment.....fracking. Before you give charts and graphs and 8x12 color gloss pictures with circles and arrows and a story on the back, I can do the same thing, and probably have more to back my point, so spare me that nonsense.
    Come back when you have a thought other than the same old, same old.
     
  21. Tim15856

    Tim15856 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2016
    Messages:
    6,142
    Likes Received:
    2,865
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Of course you do, with Dems the ends justifies the means, no matter what. And they don't care if they look like hypocrites if they whine about the GOP using the same methods.
     
  22. Xenamnes

    Xenamnes Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2015
    Messages:
    19,494
    Likes Received:
    5,550
    Trophy Points:
    113
    How does paying more for each gallon of fuel serve to save the planet? What is the connection between increased taxes and undoing the damage caused by pollution from human infrastructure? Explain such.
     
    HockeyDad likes this.
  23. HockeyDad

    HockeyDad Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2019
    Messages:
    864
    Likes Received:
    901
    Trophy Points:
    93
    Gender:
    Male
    It is a sentiment that is shared by an ever greater share of hard core conservatives. I don't think you can appreciate the level of hatred that is growing against the left in this contingent. It appears that we as a society are ever so slowly inching towards mass violence (it still seem highly improbable but it is possible).

    The legislation that the Democrats were trying to pass was an attempted power grab which would have viciously punished the poorest in society and MASSIVELY enriched a few power elites (BILLIONS of dollars to a few dozen robber barons who would have been involved in energy trading). Seriously you think that massively taxing the energy that the poor need to heat/cool their homes and to travel outside their home is going to do anything other than further impoverish them? If you really cared about the poor, you would be cheering on the Republicans, their actions protected the MOST vulnerable in their state.

    Do you oppose a wealth transfer from the bottom 99% to the top 0.0001%? If so, why do you support this legislation?
     
    Last edited: Jun 26, 2019
    Thought Criminal and Lee S like this.
  24. 9royhobbs

    9royhobbs Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2015
    Messages:
    6,094
    Likes Received:
    1,420
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I bet it feels good to get that out of your system.......again........today.
     
  25. Nunya D.

    Nunya D. Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2010
    Messages:
    9,165
    Likes Received:
    1,765
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That is not "my logic" or even remotely close to what I was saying or even implying. It is as if I told you alligators lay eggs and birds lay eggs....and you come back with "hur dee hur....you just said alligators are birds"

    We were discussing as to why businesses move over-seas. In the context of THAT discussion...regulations, labor costs, and taxes are all reasons for companies to move over-seas.

    The equation is very simple: Revenue - (Expenses + Overhead) = $$Profit$$. Taxes are overhead. The cost to mitigate regulations are overhead. Wages can be a mixture of expenses and overhead. If expenses and overhead become too great to a point where the sum decreases, a corporation WILL look at options to decrease them if they are unable to significantly increase their revenue.

    No, most corporations do not "give a crap" about people, towns, cities or country. It is irrelevant if I am ok with it or not, it is reality. Employees are not people, they are resources. The first clue of this being the case is that every large corporation has a Human RESOURCE Department (HR). Towns, cities, and countries are just locales and are chosen based on the availability of the resources a business may need (i.e. human resources, transportation, supplies, marketing, sub-contractors etc.). Corporations are not about "the product"...other than how they can increase revenue from that product. Corporations are not about customer satisfaction....other than how it relates to retaining customers. The lengths a corp goes towards customer satisfaction is directly proportional to the abundance of customers.

    It is the small businesses that sell a product because they are proud of their product...or that might care about their customers and/or their community...or that might be concerned about even one dissatisfied customer...or may care about their employees interests. Corporations? Not so much. Sure, a corp may say "we love this community", but that is nothing more than placating. They are certainly not going to say "we hate all of you lame Mo-Fo's".
     
    Thought Criminal and HockeyDad like this.

Share This Page