Redrawing Oregon Border (renting, health insurance, legally)

[2bpurrfect]

Originally Posted by rkcarguy

^^^ Idk about Oregon, but WA state has a longstanding history of increasing taxes for said costs, later re-appropriating/cutting those funds, then out comes the gov't hands for more funds because (blank) is dilapidated, poor response, not working, not enough money for schools EMT's hospitals fireman etc etc. They play all kinds of games with the "general fund" and taxes supposed to be alloted for.....whatever. Don't ask me to cite examples if you don't want pages of them. The swindle cycle repeats and repeats. Seattle's last proposal for the homeless was $970 million! That money didn't just materialize, that's taxpayer money from tax increases or robbed from other budgets. Everyone see's what good its doing....none.

that could build a lot of small cheap units for homeless, get good finance terms and get maintained by federal housing money as well. let me guess, agencies are eating it and it's not going to the actual people in need.

[2bpurrfect]

Maybe they were referencing the fact that the State DID put some people up in motels after the fires, BUT THAT IS BECAUSE THE FIRES MADE THEM HOMELESS. others just camped in their camping vehicles or could afford to fend for themselves. (funding for that more likely came from other programs - so it depleted existing funding and unit availability for other homeless, instead of the fire district tax. )


so these ranchers probably heard it thru the grapevine which is notoriously inaccurate, with one little kernel of truth. .

Originally Posted by EasyBeezy

I searched in vain for any reference to a state bill before the current legislative session which would lead to increased firefighting fees for anyone, urban or rural. I do know the Rural Fire Protection Districts are funded chiefly via local taxes (ORS 478.155), just as urban fire departments are. Most also get significant grants and subsidies from the state, and the proportion of a RFPD's budget that is sourced from subsidies is undoubtedly higher than an urban fire protection district, due to a much smaller tax base and the multitude of firefighting grants that are inherently rural in nature.

Kotek has said nothing about redirecting state firefighting grant funds to fund new programs for "vagrants." I'm pretty sure that after the catastrophic fire season of 2020, nobody will be cutting firefighting funds for many years. Kotek also does not have the power to re-appropriate funds and direct them to unrelated programs.

Also, it is a given that costs to fight fires are rising. Remember the inflation that everyone is up in arms about? It is likely that RFPD's are looking to increase levies and are experiencing budget deficits, but I could find no evidence of that online.

I lived in Eastern Oregon for a long time. I was educated there. Most of my friends in Oregon are actually from Eastern Oregon. I can tell you that many people there believe whatever they are told as long as they trust the source. I don't think your rancher friends were lying to you. I think they were told hogwash by someone they trusted who was also told hogwash, and they just believed it instead of factchecking it. Then eventually, when you happened to be there, they repeated the same hogwash. That would be a very Eastern Oregon thing to do. I can't tell you how many times I have sat around a fire in Eastern Oregon with a bunch of guys getting hammered and telling unverified BS and having some laughs.

[rkcarguy]

Originally Posted by 2bpurrfect

that could build a lot of small cheap units for homeless, get good finance terms and get maintained by federal housing money as well. let me guess, agencies are eating it and it's not going to the actual people in need.

Its almost $50K per homeless person.....$4000 per month. Something is wrong.

[EasyBeezy]

Originally Posted by rkcarguy

Its almost $50K per homeless person.....$4000 per month. Something is wrong.

I think liberals and conservatives can agree that the solution to the homelessness problem is not a matter of money, it's a matter of policy. The region has throwing a staggering amount of money at the problem, and it's made no difference.

[Reggiezz]

Though it may be difficult for those who are unable to forsee the consequences of their actions, when you subsidize something or someone, you get more of them. Most people don't want to be around addicts and crazies.

The real question is - why do the local politicians favor policies whose only beneficiary is the Mexican Cartels? Suitcases full of money buy lots of good will.

[torinn]

Originally Posted by ccjarider

Baby killing:

Tax payer funding of baby killing is much different grievance that the legality of baby killing.
Oregon is the most pro baby killing state in the union. 17 states use state dollars to pay for baby killing.
Oregon spends the most tax money and kills the most babies per capita. I acknowledge the voters of the state (mostly Portland Progressive douche-bags) vote for this.

I'd much rather be a pro-choice "douchebag" and let women and families decide for themselves what's best, than the "other douchebags" who'd rather remove choice altogether. If we're being honest here, taking away freedom of choice seems like the more "douchebaggiest".

Also, in case you were unaware, pro-choice means you have the choice to decide whether abortion is right or not. That's better than not having a choice. But you sound like a male, and like myself, until we can get pregnant and be faced with the decision, it's not exactly up to us so we should just be quiet on the topic.

I thought the "right-wingers" just wanted to "live and let live"? Or is that only when it suits their ideologies...? Ah politics. We're all the same, same, but different.


Sincerely, a moderate "leftist"

[rkcarguy]

Originally Posted by Reggiezz

Though it may be difficult for those who are unable to forsee the consequences of their actions, when you subsidize something or someone, you get more of them. Most people don't want to be around addicts and crazies.

The real question is - why do the local politicians favor policies whose only beneficiary is the Mexican Cartels? Suitcases full of money buy lots of good will.

I agree. The soft-handedness towards those caught in possession of large quantities of hard drugs certainly suggests our politicians and DA's are on the "tels" payrolls.

[Cloudy Dayz]

Originally Posted by torinn

I'd much rather be a pro-choice "douchebag" and let women and families decide for themselves what's best, than the "other douchebags" who'd rather remove choice altogether. If we're being honest here, taking away freedom of choice seems like the more "douchebaggiest".

Also, in case you were unaware, pro-choice means you have the choice to decide whether abortion is right or not. That's better than not having a choice. But you sound like a male, and like myself, until we can get pregnant and be faced with the decision, it's not exactly up to us so we should just be quiet on the topic.

I thought the "right-wingers" just wanted to "live and let live"? Or is that only when it suits their ideologies...? Ah politics. We're all the same, same, but different.


Sincerely, a moderate "leftist"

Ha ha, right-wingers have never been about live and let live. They want to control every single aspect of your life, from your own reproductive system to what books you can read and they want to hire millions of cops to follow you around and make sure that you follow their authoritarian directives.

[ccjarider]

Originally Posted by torinn

I'd much rather be a pro-choice "douchebag" and let women and families decide for themselves what's best, than the "other douchebags" who'd rather remove choice altogether. If we're being honest here, taking away freedom of choice seems like the more "douchebaggiest".

Also, in case you were unaware, pro-choice means you have the choice to decide whether abortion is right or not. That's better than not having a choice. But you sound like a male, and like myself, until we can get pregnant and be faced with the decision, it's not exactly up to us so we should just be quiet on the topic.

I thought the "right-wingers" just wanted to "live and let live"? Or is that only when it suits their ideologies...? Ah politics. We're all the same, same, but different.


Sincerely, a moderate "leftist"

Reading comprehension is hard, I get it. Keep working at it and you will get better. I have faith in you.



If you actually read the post, you would quickly decipher the discussion is not about the legality of abortion but rather the TAXPAYER Funded Baby Killing for which Oregon is a leader.


If you want to kill your baby, that is your right in Oregon. I and thousands of others however should NOT have to pay for your decision to kill your child. Do it with your own money.


Democrat "douche bags" are the greediest people on the planet.

[torinn]

Originally Posted by ccjarider

Democrat "douche bags" are the greediest people on the planet.

You're joking right? Democrats often pay (and vote for) higher taxes to help out our fellow citizens and offer more social services. It's Republicans that want fewer taxes and to cut social services and help for those who might need it. Now that's pretty greedy. But I digress.

I get where you're coming from. Politics and personal views are intertwined and it's hard, if not impossible, to separate them. But rather than looking at "what's best for me", we should think about "what's best for the majority", which may or may not include "me". Those that can help others, should help others. To me, that's the opposite of greed.

Perhaps a better way to think about the tax dollars issue, from your perspective, is to think about your tax dollars going to womens' health, which may or may not include abortions. You're helping people be healthier, or perhaps even saving lives! Consider it reversed too, if you needed health care and were denied... We're all here for each other, or we should be.