Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: ManyMoose who wrote (296974)	3/18/2009 2:41:54 PM
From: Maurice Winn	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793927

If the State of Oregon stopped wasting so much money, they would need less tax. If the spendthrift wastrel kleptocrats in governments spent a fraction of the time CUTTING SPENDING as they do figuring out new ways to increase taxes, things would be a LOT better and they would need little tax money. Their idea of cutting spending is to use a little bit less paper or use a slightly cheaper ball point pen. I'm thinking more in terms of firing half of them each year and selling the empty buildings or leasing the space. Another saving would be a new law than says no new law could be passed until two other laws have been repealed. The repealed laws would each have to weigh at least as much as the proposed new law. The New Zealand government is off to a good start - they are chopping the tree protection laws so people won't have to get a government spiv's approval to cut down their own trees [the approval is not forthcoming]. The existing tree protection laws mean I have spent the last 20 years cutting trees down to ensure no tree gets to protected height. I kill any native trees as soon as they are seedlings because native trees are protected. So, when the tree laws are repealed, the number and size of trees will increase. Traditionally, people have planted too many trees and have a constant battle to stop themselves being over run by jungle. Before the tree protection was introduced, people had huge amounts of treescape. In Australia and USA, similar stupid tree protection laws have resulted in lots of people beeing cooked alive in forest fires and their houses burned by the hundred. Two years ago, I drove around near Melbourne aghast at the disaster waiting to happen. Gum trees burn really well and fast. Towns, houses, trees, were all comingled as though fire had never been heard of. Now the trees, houses and people have gone. If the government people were private citizens they'd be prosecuted for criminal reckless endangerment if not manslaughter or murder. New Zealand is too wet and the plants too green to get such fires [other than in some manuka areas - a species of tree] Mqurice