| Author | Post |
|---|
BigSurprize
Member
|
Posted: Sat Nov 7th, 2009 03:25 pm |
|
The bard wrote: Bottom Line, Lou has painted himself/herself into a corner and has now fallen into an endless loop. This discussion is not advancing. On one hand there are those, myself included, who are offended by Lou's presumptive usurpation of our earnings and Lou who is offended by those who excel and earn more.
Congratulations!
Last edited on Sat Nov 7th, 2009 03:39 pm by BigSurprize
|
The bard
Member
|
Posted: Sat Nov 7th, 2009 01:40 pm |
|
Bottom Line, Lou has painted himself/herself into a corner and has now fallen into an endless loop. This discussion is not advancing. On one hand there are those, myself included, who are offended by Lou's presumptive usurpation of our earnings and Lou who is offended by those who excel and earn more.
|
Biggerthanabreadbox
Member
| Joined: | Sat Oct 10th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 60 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Nov 7th, 2009 12:59 pm |
|
callmelou wrote: goldrush wrote: We're going to breakup the endless postings . . .
callmelou wrote:
No problem...Tax is a debt such as any other debt. There is an obligation to pay it. You don't approve of paying it, perhaps, but it is what. Again: you are making this excessively personal. I don't care what you do with your money, as long as your debts, including taxes, are paid. By the way: you tend tend to label people as 'authoritarian' who disagree with you. The dark side tends to use 'liberal' in most sentences they scraw...interesting how the label thing unites you both.
Hey lou, taxes are not debts! They're the legal "confiscation" of a portion of people's earned income to support running the government and various programs and entitlements.
The origin of the income tax on individuals is generally cited as the passage of the 16th Amendment, passed by Congress on July 2, 1909, and ratified February 3, 1913.
Debt: that which is owed. Your semi-libertarian nonsense doesn't change that.
...the point is the ability to pay more in tax should not be confused with the willingness to pay more tax.
But you specifically mentioned the ability to pay MORE, which means you think people should scale back their lifestyle in order to be able to pay MORE in taxes. Again, you want to spend other peoples' money for them. Paying one's taxes due and wanting to pay MORE are two separate issues. You clearly indicated that you think people who have high speed internet and other such luxuries are too "rich" and could afford and should even want to pay more. That's what I am arguing against.
Last edited on Sat Nov 7th, 2009 01:03 pm by Biggerthanabreadbox
|
callmelou
Member
| Joined: | Fri Aug 28th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 583 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Nov 7th, 2009 07:19 am |
|
goldrush wrote: We're going to breakup the endless postings . . .
callmelou wrote:
No problem...Tax is a debt such as any other debt. There is an obligation to pay it. You don't approve of paying it, perhaps, but it is what. Again: you are making this excessively personal. I don't care what you do with your money, as long as your debts, including taxes, are paid. By the way: you tend tend to label people as 'authoritarian' who disagree with you. The dark side tends to use 'liberal' in most sentences they scraw...interesting how the label thing unites you both.
Hey lou, taxes are not debts! They're the legal "confiscation" of a portion of people's earned income to support running the government and various programs and entitlements.
The origin of the income tax on individuals is generally cited as the passage of the 16th Amendment, passed by Congress on July 2, 1909, and ratified February 3, 1913.
Debt: that which is owed. Your semi-libertarian nonsense doesn't change that.Last edited on Sat Nov 7th, 2009 07:20 am by callmelou
|
The bard
Member
|
Posted: Sat Nov 7th, 2009 03:22 am |
|
goldrush wrote: We're going to breakup the endless postings . . .
callmelou wrote:
No problem...Tax is a debt such as any other debt. There is an obligation to pay it. You don't approve of paying it, perhaps, but it is what. Again: you are making this excessively personal. I don't care what you do with your money, as long as your debts, including taxes, are paid. By the way: you tend tend to label people as 'authoritarian' who disagree with you. The dark side tends to use 'liberal' in most sentences they scraw...interesting how the label thing unites you both.
Hey lou, taxes are not debts! They're the legal "confiscation" of a portion of people's earned income to support running the government and various programs and entitlements.
The origin of the income tax on individuals is generally cited as the passage of the 16th Amendment, passed by Congress on July 2, 1909, and ratified February 3, 1913.
Thank you, Lou was off in another endless loop.
|
goldrush
Member
| Joined: | Mon Sep 4th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1407 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Nov 7th, 2009 12:04 am |
|
We're going to breakup the endless postings . . .
callmelou wrote:
No problem...Tax is a debt such as any other debt. There is an obligation to pay it. You don't approve of paying it, perhaps, but it is what. Again: you are making this excessively personal. I don't care what you do with your money, as long as your debts, including taxes, are paid. By the way: you tend tend to label people as 'authoritarian' who disagree with you. The dark side tends to use 'liberal' in most sentences they scraw...interesting how the label thing unites you both.
Hey lou, taxes are not debts! They're the legal "confiscation" of a portion of people's earned income to support running the government and various programs and entitlements.
The origin of the income tax on individuals is generally cited as the passage of the 16th Amendment, passed by Congress on July 2, 1909, and ratified February 3, 1913.
Last edited on Sat Nov 7th, 2009 12:05 am by goldrush
|
Craig
Member
| Joined: | Sat Jan 21st, 2006 |
| Location: | Arizona USA |
| Posts: | 3785 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Nov 6th, 2009 09:39 pm |
|
rvukanovich wrote:
I don’t believe we were frustrated, we wanted a smaller amount of bonds to be sold and that amount cast in stone for what projects
This Council wanted a blank check for whatever, did they think we were that dumb.
I too would have supported a smaller more focused measure.
|
callmelou
Member
| Joined: | Fri Aug 28th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 583 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Nov 6th, 2009 09:23 pm |
|
The bard wrote: Biggerthanabreadbox wrote: callmelou wrote: The bard wrote: callmelou wrote: The bard wrote: callmelou wrote: The bard wrote: callmelou wrote: lotfotl wrote: Craig wrote: Biggest issue with the bond for me was too much authority too far out in the future.
In my opinion, any tax on your personal property is a sham and should be voted down. If they want to raise taxes let them do it in a way that won't threaten a persons ability to stay in their home. The only reason government keeps going after homeowners is they figure you'll be forced to pay up or lose your home.
I often come in contact with homeowners and renters who claim they are maxed out with monthy payments for 'essentials'...then I learn 'essentials' include high speed internet (what's wrong with dial up) and $80 cable TV package (what's wrong with an antenna for $40 and no monthy cable fee)...the point is the ability to pay more in tax should not be confused with the willingness to pay more tax.
Lou I will thank you to not presume to decide how I should dispose of my income.
You have not helped me earn it. You provide me nothing beyond a poster to talk to on the internet. You do not warm my bed nor my meals. You have no claim on my earnings.
I presume that is also true of: the military; the police; the fire department; and all other government agencies as well, unless you have a very large bed... Yet you are obligated to 'pay them' regardless of whether or not you'd prefer to spend your money (which technically isn't yours, it's the property of the government) on other things, such as Palin's upcoming book (which is on sale for $4.97 on Newsmax..and overpriced at that)...
Arroz con mangoes Lou. You were specifically addressing those who are complaining of their tax burdens and rather arrogantly presuming to determine for them what are and are not essentials.
By example Lou, as part of my job function I frequently remote into sites and resolve issues. "Dial Up", (Lord, is that still even available?), can not meet the performance specification of my connections.
Another point though that literally flew right off the screen, Good Lord Lou, would you please explain this concept of yours about money being government property? I can hardly address something in debate that I cannot conceive of.
I was referring to people who claim they could not afford to pay bills, including tax, because they had other "essentials' including hi speed internet, cable TV, and I'll throw cigarettes and alcohol into that mix. These are people who do not necessarily disagree with the concept of paying taxes, many are people who made a choice of what to do with their income which does not inlcude non-entertainment bills. If you regard those items as essentials, I have to disagree...since there are alternatives IE no smoking, not drinking, dial up (yes, it's still available), and OTA TV. The concept about currency being a gov't IOU is abstract and probably a distraction.
Lou,
By what right would you ever presume to tell another how dispose of their earnings?
I do not need to even go to the trouble of labeling something essential, my earnings are MY EARNINGS. If I choose to convert every dime to cash and use it in my barbeque pit, THAT IS MY DECISION.
Oh and so what on alcohol and tobacco? I don't smoke and drink so seldom it is not a factor.
d**n! They still have Dial Up? WOW!! So what do you use on it, a Commie 64?
You're personalizing this to the max. I was referring to people who essentially seek to have a debt forgiven on the basis of their income and expenses. If I lend you money and you are unwilling to repay me, your "decision" becomes my problem. People make choices on how they spend their money....no problem with that unless it impacts others. I don't think you'd say it's OK to deprive a child of food becuase you decided to blow it at a casino instead. Individual discretionary spending may have outcomes conflicting with either laws or norms.
Not true! Your original comment was about people who can't pay more in TAXES because they are stretched with bills you deem nonessential. You seem to think people should downgrade their lifestyle to pay more taxes. Dial up internet, basic cable, antiquated video games, etc. It has nothing to do with paying debts or affecting you directly. You seem to think that if a person can afford high speed internet and cable, they can certainly AFFORD to pay more taxes but they simply don't want to. It's not your money to spend for them!
Here it is again in case you want to try to twist it:
I often come in contact with homeowners and renters who claim they are maxed out with monthy payments for 'essentials'...then I learn 'essentials' include high speed internet (what's wrong with dial up) and $80 cable TV package (what's wrong with an antenna for $40 and no monthy cable fee)...the point is the ability to pay more in tax should not be confused with the willingness to pay more tax.
That is quite correct, Lou you talked yourself into a corner and now you are acting like the other authoritarians here, trying to spin your way out of it.
(OH I identified you long ago Lou! But you are not a Republican authoritarian, you are Lucifer's problem, not mine!)
No problem...Tax is a debt such as any other debt. There is an obligation to pay it. You don't approve of paying it, perhaps, but it is what. Again: you are making this excessively personal. I don't care what you do with your money, as long as your debts, including taxes, are paid. By the way: you tend tend to label people as 'authoritarian' who disagree with you. The dark side tends to use 'liberal' in most sentences they scraw...interesting how the label thing unites you both.
|
cindisue_g
Member
| Joined: | Wed Feb 22nd, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2527 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Nov 6th, 2009 09:07 pm |
|
| I've got to agree with you on this one Bob.
|
rvukanovich
Member
| Joined: | Tue Sep 29th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 81 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Nov 6th, 2009 08:15 pm |
|
I don’t believe we were frustrated, we wanted a smaller amount of bonds to be sold and that amount cast in stone for what projects
This Council wanted a blank check for whatever, did they think we were that dumb.
|
Craig
Member
| Joined: | Sat Jan 21st, 2006 |
| Location: | Arizona USA |
| Posts: | 3785 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Nov 6th, 2009 07:55 pm |
|
http://www.azcentral.com/community/surprise/articles/2009/11/06/20091106gl-nwvelectfolo1106.html
The mayor says he is going to go to the voters and find out what their frustrations are. That sounds like a good solid plan.
|
BigSurprize
Member
|
Posted: Fri Nov 6th, 2009 03:00 pm |
|
The bard wrote: Biggerthanabreadbox wrote: callmelou wrote: The bard wrote: callmelou wrote: The bard wrote: callmelou wrote: The bard wrote: callmelou wrote: lotfotl wrote: Craig wrote: Biggest issue with the bond for me was too much authority too far out in the future.
In my opinion, any tax on your personal property is a sham and should be voted down. If they want to raise taxes let them do it in a way that won't threaten a persons ability to stay in their home. The only reason government keeps going after homeowners is they figure you'll be forced to pay up or lose your home.
I often come in contact with homeowners and renters who claim they are maxed out with monthy payments for 'essentials'...then I learn 'essentials' include high speed internet (what's wrong with dial up) and $80 cable TV package (what's wrong with an antenna for $40 and no monthy cable fee)...the point is the ability to pay more in tax should not be confused with the willingness to pay more tax.
Lou I will thank you to not presume to decide how I should dispose of my income.
You have not helped me earn it. You provide me nothing beyond a poster to talk to on the internet. You do not warm my bed nor my meals. You have no claim on my earnings.
I presume that is also true of: the military; the police; the fire department; and all other government agencies as well, unless you have a very large bed... Yet you are obligated to 'pay them' regardless of whether or not you'd prefer to spend your money (which technically isn't yours, it's the property of the government) on other things, such as Palin's upcoming book (which is on sale for $4.97 on Newsmax..and overpriced at that)...
Arroz con mangoes Lou. You were specifically addressing those who are complaining of their tax burdens and rather arrogantly presuming to determine for them what are and are not essentials.
By example Lou, as part of my job function I frequently remote into sites and resolve issues. "Dial Up", (Lord, is that still even available?), can not meet the performance specification of my connections.
Another point though that literally flew right off the screen, Good Lord Lou, would you please explain this concept of yours about money being government property? I can hardly address something in debate that I cannot conceive of.
I was referring to people who claim they could not afford to pay bills, including tax, because they had other "essentials' including hi speed internet, cable TV, and I'll throw cigarettes and alcohol into that mix. These are people who do not necessarily disagree with the concept of paying taxes, many are people who made a choice of what to do with their income which does not inlcude non-entertainment bills. If you regard those items as essentials, I have to disagree...since there are alternatives IE no smoking, not drinking, dial up (yes, it's still available), and OTA TV. The concept about currency being a gov't IOU is abstract and probably a distraction.
Lou,
By what right would you ever presume to tell another how dispose of their earnings?
I do not need to even go to the trouble of labeling something essential, my earnings are MY EARNINGS. If I choose to convert every dime to cash and use it in my barbeque pit, THAT IS MY DECISION.
Oh and so what on alcohol and tobacco? I don't smoke and drink so seldom it is not a factor.
d**n! They still have Dial Up? WOW!! So what do you use on it, a Commie 64?
You're personalizing this to the max. I was referring to people who essentially seek to have a debt forgiven on the basis of their income and expenses. If I lend you money and you are unwilling to repay me, your "decision" becomes my problem. People make choices on how they spend their money....no problem with that unless it impacts others. I don't think you'd say it's OK to deprive a child of food becuase you decided to blow it at a casino instead. Individual discretionary spending may have outcomes conflicting with either laws or norms.
Not true! Your original comment was about people who can't pay more in TAXES because they are stretched with bills you deem nonessential. You seem to think people should downgrade their lifestyle to pay more taxes. Dial up internet, basic cable, antiquated video games, etc. It has nothing to do with paying debts or affecting you directly. You seem to think that if a person can afford high speed internet and cable, they can certainly AFFORD to pay more taxes but they simply don't want to. It's not your money to spend for them!
Here it is again in case you want to try to twist it:
I often come in contact with homeowners and renters who claim they are maxed out with monthy payments for 'essentials'...then I learn 'essentials' include high speed internet (what's wrong with dial up) and $80 cable TV package (what's wrong with an antenna for $40 and no monthy cable fee)...the point is the ability to pay more in tax should not be confused with the willingness to pay more tax.
That is quite correct, Lou you talked yourself into a corner and now you are acting like the other authoritarians here, trying to spin your way out of it.
(OH I identified you long ago Lou! But you are not a Republican authoritarian, you are Lucifer's problem, not mine!)
|
The bard
Member
|
Posted: Fri Nov 6th, 2009 01:56 pm |
|
Biggerthanabreadbox wrote: callmelou wrote: The bard wrote: callmelou wrote: The bard wrote: callmelou wrote: The bard wrote: callmelou wrote: lotfotl wrote: Craig wrote: Biggest issue with the bond for me was too much authority too far out in the future.
In my opinion, any tax on your personal property is a sham and should be voted down. If they want to raise taxes let them do it in a way that won't threaten a persons ability to stay in their home. The only reason government keeps going after homeowners is they figure you'll be forced to pay up or lose your home.
I often come in contact with homeowners and renters who claim they are maxed out with monthy payments for 'essentials'...then I learn 'essentials' include high speed internet (what's wrong with dial up) and $80 cable TV package (what's wrong with an antenna for $40 and no monthy cable fee)...the point is the ability to pay more in tax should not be confused with the willingness to pay more tax.
Lou I will thank you to not presume to decide how I should dispose of my income.
You have not helped me earn it. You provide me nothing beyond a poster to talk to on the internet. You do not warm my bed nor my meals. You have no claim on my earnings.
I presume that is also true of: the military; the police; the fire department; and all other government agencies as well, unless you have a very large bed... Yet you are obligated to 'pay them' regardless of whether or not you'd prefer to spend your money (which technically isn't yours, it's the property of the government) on other things, such as Palin's upcoming book (which is on sale for $4.97 on Newsmax..and overpriced at that)...
Arroz con mangoes Lou. You were specifically addressing those who are complaining of their tax burdens and rather arrogantly presuming to determine for them what are and are not essentials.
By example Lou, as part of my job function I frequently remote into sites and resolve issues. "Dial Up", (Lord, is that still even available?), can not meet the performance specification of my connections.
Another point though that literally flew right off the screen, Good Lord Lou, would you please explain this concept of yours about money being government property? I can hardly address something in debate that I cannot conceive of.
I was referring to people who claim they could not afford to pay bills, including tax, because they had other "essentials' including hi speed internet, cable TV, and I'll throw cigarettes and alcohol into that mix. These are people who do not necessarily disagree with the concept of paying taxes, many are people who made a choice of what to do with their income which does not inlcude non-entertainment bills. If you regard those items as essentials, I have to disagree...since there are alternatives IE no smoking, not drinking, dial up (yes, it's still available), and OTA TV. The concept about currency being a gov't IOU is abstract and probably a distraction.
Lou,
By what right would you ever presume to tell another how dispose of their earnings?
I do not need to even go to the trouble of labeling something essential, my earnings are MY EARNINGS. If I choose to convert every dime to cash and use it in my barbeque pit, THAT IS MY DECISION.
Oh and so what on alcohol and tobacco? I don't smoke and drink so seldom it is not a factor.
d**n! They still have Dial Up? WOW!! So what do you use on it, a Commie 64?
You're personalizing this to the max. I was referring to people who essentially seek to have a debt forgiven on the basis of their income and expenses. If I lend you money and you are unwilling to repay me, your "decision" becomes my problem. People make choices on how they spend their money....no problem with that unless it impacts others. I don't think you'd say it's OK to deprive a child of food becuase you decided to blow it at a casino instead. Individual discretionary spending may have outcomes conflicting with either laws or norms.
Not true! Your original comment was about people who can't pay more in TAXES because they are stretched with bills you deem nonessential. You seem to think people should downgrade their lifestyle to pay more taxes. Dial up internet, basic cable, antiquated video games, etc. It has nothing to do with paying debts or affecting you directly. You seem to think that if a person can afford high speed internet and cable, they can certainly AFFORD to pay more taxes but they simply don't want to. It's not your money to spend for them!
Here it is again in case you want to try to twist it:
I often come in contact with homeowners and renters who claim they are maxed out with monthy payments for 'essentials'...then I learn 'essentials' include high speed internet (what's wrong with dial up) and $80 cable TV package (what's wrong with an antenna for $40 and no monthy cable fee)...the point is the ability to pay more in tax should not be confused with the willingness to pay more tax.
That is quite correct, Lou you talked yourself into a corner and now you are acting like the other authoritarians here, trying to spin your way out of it.
(OH I identified you long ago Lou! But you are not a Republican authoritarian, you are Lucifer's problem, not mine!)
|
Biggerthanabreadbox
Member
| Joined: | Sat Oct 10th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 60 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Nov 6th, 2009 12:16 pm |
|
callmelou wrote: The bard wrote: callmelou wrote: The bard wrote: callmelou wrote: The bard wrote: callmelou wrote: lotfotl wrote: Craig wrote: Biggest issue with the bond for me was too much authority too far out in the future.
In my opinion, any tax on your personal property is a sham and should be voted down. If they want to raise taxes let them do it in a way that won't threaten a persons ability to stay in their home. The only reason government keeps going after homeowners is they figure you'll be forced to pay up or lose your home.
I often come in contact with homeowners and renters who claim they are maxed out with monthy payments for 'essentials'...then I learn 'essentials' include high speed internet (what's wrong with dial up) and $80 cable TV package (what's wrong with an antenna for $40 and no monthy cable fee)...the point is the ability to pay more in tax should not be confused with the willingness to pay more tax.
Lou I will thank you to not presume to decide how I should dispose of my income.
You have not helped me earn it. You provide me nothing beyond a poster to talk to on the internet. You do not warm my bed nor my meals. You have no claim on my earnings.
I presume that is also true of: the military; the police; the fire department; and all other government agencies as well, unless you have a very large bed... Yet you are obligated to 'pay them' regardless of whether or not you'd prefer to spend your money (which technically isn't yours, it's the property of the government) on other things, such as Palin's upcoming book (which is on sale for $4.97 on Newsmax..and overpriced at that)...
Arroz con mangoes Lou. You were specifically addressing those who are complaining of their tax burdens and rather arrogantly presuming to determine for them what are and are not essentials.
By example Lou, as part of my job function I frequently remote into sites and resolve issues. "Dial Up", (Lord, is that still even available?), can not meet the performance specification of my connections.
Another point though that literally flew right off the screen, Good Lord Lou, would you please explain this concept of yours about money being government property? I can hardly address something in debate that I cannot conceive of.
I was referring to people who claim they could not afford to pay bills, including tax, because they had other "essentials' including hi speed internet, cable TV, and I'll throw cigarettes and alcohol into that mix. These are people who do not necessarily disagree with the concept of paying taxes, many are people who made a choice of what to do with their income which does not inlcude non-entertainment bills. If you regard those items as essentials, I have to disagree...since there are alternatives IE no smoking, not drinking, dial up (yes, it's still available), and OTA TV. The concept about currency being a gov't IOU is abstract and probably a distraction.
Lou,
By what right would you ever presume to tell another how dispose of their earnings?
I do not need to even go to the trouble of labeling something essential, my earnings are MY EARNINGS. If I choose to convert every dime to cash and use it in my barbeque pit, THAT IS MY DECISION.
Oh and so what on alcohol and tobacco? I don't smoke and drink so seldom it is not a factor.
d**n! They still have Dial Up? WOW!! So what do you use on it, a Commie 64?
You're personalizing this to the max. I was referring to people who essentially seek to have a debt forgiven on the basis of their income and expenses. If I lend you money and you are unwilling to repay me, your "decision" becomes my problem. People make choices on how they spend their money....no problem with that unless it impacts others. I don't think you'd say it's OK to deprive a child of food becuase you decided to blow it at a casino instead. Individual discretionary spending may have outcomes conflicting with either laws or norms.
Not true! Your original comment was about people who can't pay more in TAXES because they are stretched with bills you deem nonessential. You seem to think people should downgrade their lifestyle to pay more taxes. Dial up internet, basic cable, antiquated video games, etc. It has nothing to do with paying debts or affecting you directly. You seem to think that if a person can afford high speed internet and cable, they can certainly AFFORD to pay more taxes but they simply don't want to. It's not your money to spend for them!
Here it is again in case you want to try to twist it:
I often come in contact with homeowners and renters who claim they are maxed out with monthy payments for 'essentials'...then I learn 'essentials' include high speed internet (what's wrong with dial up) and $80 cable TV package (what's wrong with an antenna for $40 and no monthy cable fee)...the point is the ability to pay more in tax should not be confused with the willingness to pay more tax.
|
callmelou
Member
| Joined: | Fri Aug 28th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 583 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Nov 6th, 2009 05:40 am |
|
The bard wrote: callmelou wrote: The bard wrote: callmelou wrote: The bard wrote: callmelou wrote: lotfotl wrote: Craig wrote: Biggest issue with the bond for me was too much authority too far out in the future.
In my opinion, any tax on your personal property is a sham and should be voted down. If they want to raise taxes let them do it in a way that won't threaten a persons ability to stay in their home. The only reason government keeps going after homeowners is they figure you'll be forced to pay up or lose your home.
I often come in contact with homeowners and renters who claim they are maxed out with monthy payments for 'essentials'...then I learn 'essentials' include high speed internet (what's wrong with dial up) and $80 cable TV package (what's wrong with an antenna for $40 and no monthy cable fee)...the point is the ability to pay more in tax should not be confused with the willingness to pay more tax.
Lou I will thank you to not presume to decide how I should dispose of my income.
You have not helped me earn it. You provide me nothing beyond a poster to talk to on the internet. You do not warm my bed nor my meals. You have no claim on my earnings.
I presume that is also true of: the military; the police; the fire department; and all other government agencies as well, unless you have a very large bed... Yet you are obligated to 'pay them' regardless of whether or not you'd prefer to spend your money (which technically isn't yours, it's the property of the government) on other things, such as Palin's upcoming book (which is on sale for $4.97 on Newsmax..and overpriced at that)...
Arroz con mangoes Lou. You were specifically addressing those who are complaining of their tax burdens and rather arrogantly presuming to determine for them what are and are not essentials.
By example Lou, as part of my job function I frequently remote into sites and resolve issues. "Dial Up", (Lord, is that still even available?), can not meet the performance specification of my connections.
Another point though that literally flew right off the screen, Good Lord Lou, would you please explain this concept of yours about money being government property? I can hardly address something in debate that I cannot conceive of.
I was referring to people who claim they could not afford to pay bills, including tax, because they had other "essentials' including hi speed internet, cable TV, and I'll throw cigarettes and alcohol into that mix. These are people who do not necessarily disagree with the concept of paying taxes, many are people who made a choice of what to do with their income which does not inlcude non-entertainment bills. If you regard those items as essentials, I have to disagree...since there are alternatives IE no smoking, not drinking, dial up (yes, it's still available), and OTA TV. The concept about currency being a gov't IOU is abstract and probably a distraction.
Lou,
By what right would you ever presume to tell another how dispose of their earnings?
I do not need to even go to the trouble of labeling something essential, my earnings are MY EARNINGS. If I choose to convert every dime to cash and use it in my barbeque pit, THAT IS MY DECISION.
Oh and so what on alcohol and tobacco? I don't smoke and drink so seldom it is not a factor.
d**n! They still have Dial Up? WOW!! So what do you use on it, a Commie 64?
You're personalizing this to the max. I was referring to people who essentially seek to have a debt forgiven on the basis of their income and expenses. If I lend you money and you are unwilling to repay me, your "decision" becomes my problem. People make choices on how they spend their money....no problem with that unless it impacts others. I don't think you'd say it's OK to deprive a child of food becuase you decided to blow it at a casino instead. Individual discretionary spending may have outcomes conflicting with either laws or norms.
|
The bard
Member
|
Posted: Thu Nov 5th, 2009 09:55 am |
|
callmelou wrote: The bard wrote: callmelou wrote: The bard wrote: callmelou wrote: lotfotl wrote: Craig wrote: Biggest issue with the bond for me was too much authority too far out in the future.
In my opinion, any tax on your personal property is a sham and should be voted down. If they want to raise taxes let them do it in a way that won't threaten a persons ability to stay in their home. The only reason government keeps going after homeowners is they figure you'll be forced to pay up or lose your home.
I often come in contact with homeowners and renters who claim they are maxed out with monthy payments for 'essentials'...then I learn 'essentials' include high speed internet (what's wrong with dial up) and $80 cable TV package (what's wrong with an antenna for $40 and no monthy cable fee)...the point is the ability to pay more in tax should not be confused with the willingness to pay more tax.
Lou I will thank you to not presume to decide how I should dispose of my income.
You have not helped me earn it. You provide me nothing beyond a poster to talk to on the internet. You do not warm my bed nor my meals. You have no claim on my earnings.
I presume that is also true of: the military; the police; the fire department; and all other government agencies as well, unless you have a very large bed... Yet you are obligated to 'pay them' regardless of whether or not you'd prefer to spend your money (which technically isn't yours, it's the property of the government) on other things, such as Palin's upcoming book (which is on sale for $4.97 on Newsmax..and overpriced at that)...
Arroz con mangoes Lou. You were specifically addressing those who are complaining of their tax burdens and rather arrogantly presuming to determine for them what are and are not essentials.
By example Lou, as part of my job function I frequently remote into sites and resolve issues. "Dial Up", (Lord, is that still even available?), can not meet the performance specification of my connections.
Another point though that literally flew right off the screen, Good Lord Lou, would you please explain this concept of yours about money being government property? I can hardly address something in debate that I cannot conceive of.
I was referring to people who claim they could not afford to pay bills, including tax, because they had other "essentials' including hi speed internet, cable TV, and I'll throw cigarettes and alcohol into that mix. These are people who do not necessarily disagree with the concept of paying taxes, many are people who made a choice of what to do with their income which does not inlcude non-entertainment bills. If you regard those items as essentials, I have to disagree...since there are alternatives IE no smoking, not drinking, dial up (yes, it's still available), and OTA TV. The concept about currency being a gov't IOU is abstract and probably a distraction.
Lou,
By what right would you ever presume to tell another how dispose of their earnings?
I do not need to even go to the trouble of labeling something essential, my earnings are MY EARNINGS. If I choose to convert every dime to cash and use it in my barbeque pit, THAT IS MY DECISION.
Oh and so what on alcohol and tobacco? I don't smoke and drink so seldom it is not a factor.
d**n! They still have Dial Up? WOW!! So what do you use on it, a Commie 64?
|
callmelou
Member
| Joined: | Fri Aug 28th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 583 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 5th, 2009 02:59 am |
|
The bard wrote: callmelou wrote: The bard wrote: callmelou wrote: lotfotl wrote: Craig wrote: Biggest issue with the bond for me was too much authority too far out in the future.
In my opinion, any tax on your personal property is a sham and should be voted down. If they want to raise taxes let them do it in a way that won't threaten a persons ability to stay in their home. The only reason government keeps going after homeowners is they figure you'll be forced to pay up or lose your home.
I often come in contact with homeowners and renters who claim they are maxed out with monthy payments for 'essentials'...then I learn 'essentials' include high speed internet (what's wrong with dial up) and $80 cable TV package (what's wrong with an antenna for $40 and no monthy cable fee)...the point is the ability to pay more in tax should not be confused with the willingness to pay more tax.
Lou I will thank you to not presume to decide how I should dispose of my income.
You have not helped me earn it. You provide me nothing beyond a poster to talk to on the internet. You do not warm my bed nor my meals. You have no claim on my earnings.
I presume that is also true of: the military; the police; the fire department; and all other government agencies as well, unless you have a very large bed... Yet you are obligated to 'pay them' regardless of whether or not you'd prefer to spend your money (which technically isn't yours, it's the property of the government) on other things, such as Palin's upcoming book (which is on sale for $4.97 on Newsmax..and overpriced at that)...
Arroz con mangoes Lou. You were specifically addressing those who are complaining of their tax burdens and rather arrogantly presuming to determine for them what are and are not essentials.
By example Lou, as part of my job function I frequently remote into sites and resolve issues. "Dial Up", (Lord, is that still even available?), can not meet the performance specification of my connections.
Another point though that literally flew right off the screen, Good Lord Lou, would you please explain this concept of yours about money being government property? I can hardly address something in debate that I cannot conceive of.
I was referring to people who claim they could not afford to pay bills, including tax, because they had other "essentials' including hi speed internet, cable TV, and I'll throw cigarettes and alcohol into that mix. These are people who do not necessarily disagree with the concept of paying taxes, many are people who made a choice of what to do with their income which does not inlcude non-entertainment bills. If you regard those items as essentials, I have to disagree...since there are alternatives IE no smoking, not drinking, dial up (yes, it's still available), and OTA TV. The concept about currency being a gov't IOU is abstract and probably a distraction.
|
Craig
Member
| Joined: | Sat Jan 21st, 2006 |
| Location: | Arizona USA |
| Posts: | 3785 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 5th, 2009 02:49 am |
|
Razenkn wrote: Craig wrote: Razenkn wrote: Craig wrote: Razenkn wrote: Craig wrote: "Voters have clearly spoken," said Mayor Lyn Truitt. "Until residents are ready for transportation improvements, we're just going to wait."
Leaders dont wait...
So, what do you propose Craig? That was really the main reason I voted for it because we are going to regret not having the option down the road "so to speak". But, the other side of me figured it would go down because the last thing anyone wants in these tough economic times would be for a tax raise, so it was a pretty much a given it would go down in flames. But seriously, leaders's don't wait?? What does that mean?? That almost sounds personal. 
Nothing personal, just a weak response from the mayor. I wouldnt go so far and call it a veiled threat exactly but when you come out and tell the city that since you voted it down, now im going to do nothing until you do, i just think that shows poor leadership. As far as what to do, hey you elected him not me.  I would have rather him come out and say something to the effect that we were going to have to roll up our sleeves and work on alternatives. I hope hes not really going to just wait for the money. 
I see where you are coming from but he's not the threatening type. I think it showed his disappointment because the reality is just that, reality. You don't make improvements without money and in an economy that is so weak, it may be quite some time before the revenues will match the needs. The citizens obviously do not want taxes to be raised so there are only so many pots from which to tap. The economy effects us all including the developers. But from what I know of the Mayor he is already moving on to plan B. That's what I like about him, he's always looking ahead so we'll see. I wouldn't cross his name off the list just yet.
The more i think about this plan B idea, I am wondering if the other council members are aware of such a plan ? Or is the mayor acting on his own with these plans you speak of. The thing i feel gets lost in the translation of positions on the council. The mayor is really only a councilman at large and moderates the meeting in a manner of speaking. He really should not be formulating plans and ideas without the council. What do you think his plan B is? Sell Muni bonds ? Just curious.
Uhh Craig, those were my words, not the Mayors. That was an assumption on my part, please try not to make more of that than it is. I haven't spoken to the Mayor so I don't know. I am speaking about a natural leader who is always thinking ahead so I'm saying knowing the way he thinks, he's already trying to figure out what comes next. That is why I support him. Not everyone has that ability but he does. If this is something that bothers you and obviously it does, why not call him and set up an appt to talk to him about it and find out first hand??? That's what I would do.
Nothin bothering me, you just got me thinking thats all. You do that sometimes. Not trying to make anything at all. Like i said curious.
|
callmelou
Member
| Joined: | Fri Aug 28th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 583 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 5th, 2009 02:47 am |
|
Craig wrote: Im not planning to give the big overweight government any more money.
I suppose you're also planning not to accept any SS payments other than what you put in.
|
callmelou
Member
| Joined: | Fri Aug 28th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 583 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 5th, 2009 02:41 am |
|
Razenkn wrote: Craig wrote: Razenkn wrote: Craig wrote: Razenkn wrote: Craig wrote: "Voters have clearly spoken," said Mayor Lyn Truitt. "Until residents are ready for transportation improvements, we're just going to wait."
Leaders dont wait...
So, what do you propose Craig? That was really the main reason I voted for it because we are going to regret not having the option down the road "so to speak". But, the other side of me figured it would go down because the last thing anyone wants in these tough economic times would be for a tax raise, so it was a pretty much a given it would go down in flames. But seriously, leaders's don't wait?? What does that mean?? That almost sounds personal.
Nothing personal, just a weak response from the mayor. I wouldnt go so far and call it a veiled threat exactly but when you come out and tell the city that since you voted it down, now im going to do nothing until you do, i just think that shows poor leadership. As far as what to do, hey you elected him not me. I would have rather him come out and say something to the effect that we were going to have to roll up our sleeves and work on alternatives. I hope hes not really going to just wait for the money.
I see where you are coming from but he's not the threatening type. I think it showed his disappointment because the reality is just that, reality. You don't make improvements without money and in an economy that is so weak, it may be quite some time before the revenues will match the needs. The citizens obviously do not want taxes to be raised so there are only so many pots from which to tap. The economy effects us all including the developers. But from what I know of the Mayor he is already moving on to plan B. That's what I like about him, he's always looking ahead so we'll see. I wouldn't cross his name off the list just yet.
The more i think about this plan B idea, I am wondering if the other council members are aware of such a plan ? Or is the mayor acting on his own with these plans you speak of. The thing i feel gets lost in the translation of positions on the council. The mayor is really only a councilman at large and moderates the meeting in a manner of speaking. He really should not be formulating plans and ideas without the council. What do you think his plan B is? Sell Muni bonds ? Just curious.
Uhh Craig, those were my words, not the Mayors. That was an assumption on my part, please try not to make more of that than it is. I haven't spoken to the Mayor so I don't know. I am speaking about a natural leader who is always thinking ahead so I'm saying knowing the way he thinks, he's already trying to figure out what comes next. That is why I support him. Not everyone has that ability but he does. If this is something that bothers you and obviously it does, why not call him and set up an appt to talk to him about it and find out first hand??? That's what I would do.
Lyn is a "natural leader"?? This from the guy who thinks Palin is a natual leader..lol
|
Razenkn
Member
| Joined: | Thu Jun 4th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1809 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 5th, 2009 02:32 am |
|
Craig wrote: Razenkn wrote: Craig wrote: Razenkn wrote: Craig wrote: "Voters have clearly spoken," said Mayor Lyn Truitt. "Until residents are ready for transportation improvements, we're just going to wait."
Leaders dont wait...
So, what do you propose Craig? That was really the main reason I voted for it because we are going to regret not having the option down the road "so to speak". But, the other side of me figured it would go down because the last thing anyone wants in these tough economic times would be for a tax raise, so it was a pretty much a given it would go down in flames. But seriously, leaders's don't wait?? What does that mean?? That almost sounds personal.
Nothing personal, just a weak response from the mayor. I wouldnt go so far and call it a veiled threat exactly but when you come out and tell the city that since you voted it down, now im going to do nothing until you do, i just think that shows poor leadership. As far as what to do, hey you elected him not me. I would have rather him come out and say something to the effect that we were going to have to roll up our sleeves and work on alternatives. I hope hes not really going to just wait for the money.
I see where you are coming from but he's not the threatening type. I think it showed his disappointment because the reality is just that, reality. You don't make improvements without money and in an economy that is so weak, it may be quite some time before the revenues will match the needs. The citizens obviously do not want taxes to be raised so there are only so many pots from which to tap. The economy effects us all including the developers. But from what I know of the Mayor he is already moving on to plan B. That's what I like about him, he's always looking ahead so we'll see. I wouldn't cross his name off the list just yet.
The more i think about this plan B idea, I am wondering if the other council members are aware of such a plan ? Or is the mayor acting on his own with these plans you speak of. The thing i feel gets lost in the translation of positions on the council. The mayor is really only a councilman at large and moderates the meeting in a manner of speaking. He really should not be formulating plans and ideas without the council. What do you think his plan B is? Sell Muni bonds ? Just curious.
Uhh Craig, those were my words, not the Mayors. That was an assumption on my part, please try not to make more of that than it is. I haven't spoken to the Mayor so I don't know. I am speaking about a natural leader who is always thinking ahead so I'm saying knowing the way he thinks, he's already trying to figure out what comes next. That is why I support him. Not everyone has that ability but he does. If this is something that bothers you and obviously it does, why not call him and set up an appt to talk to him about it and find out first hand??? That's what I would do.
|
Craig
Member
| Joined: | Sat Jan 21st, 2006 |
| Location: | Arizona USA |
| Posts: | 3785 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 5th, 2009 02:13 am |
|
Razenkn wrote: Craig wrote: Razenkn wrote: Craig wrote: "Voters have clearly spoken," said Mayor Lyn Truitt. "Until residents are ready for transportation improvements, we're just going to wait."
Leaders dont wait...
So, what do you propose Craig? That was really the main reason I voted for it because we are going to regret not having the option down the road "so to speak". But, the other side of me figured it would go down because the last thing anyone wants in these tough economic times would be for a tax raise, so it was a pretty much a given it would go down in flames. But seriously, leaders's don't wait?? What does that mean?? That almost sounds personal.
Nothing personal, just a weak response from the mayor. I wouldnt go so far and call it a veiled threat exactly but when you come out and tell the city that since you voted it down, now im going to do nothing until you do, i just think that shows poor leadership. As far as what to do, hey you elected him not me. I would have rather him come out and say something to the effect that we were going to have to roll up our sleeves and work on alternatives. I hope hes not really going to just wait for the money.
I see where you are coming from but he's not the threatening type. I think it showed his disappointment because the reality is just that, reality. You don't make improvements without money and in an economy that is so weak, it may be quite some time before the revenues will match the needs. The citizens obviously do not want taxes to be raised so there are only so many pots from which to tap. The economy effects us all including the developers. But from what I know of the Mayor he is already moving on to plan B. That's what I like about him, he's always looking ahead so we'll see. I wouldn't cross his name off the list just yet.
The more i think about this plan B idea, I am wondering if the other council members are aware of such a plan ? Or is the mayor acting on his own with these plans you speak of. The thing i feel gets lost in the translation of positions on the council. The mayor is really only a councilman at large and moderates the meeting in a manner of speaking. He really should not be formulating plans and ideas without the council. What do you think his plan B is? Sell Muni bonds ? Just curious.
|
The bard
Member
|
Posted: Wed Nov 4th, 2009 08:58 pm |
|
callmelou wrote: The bard wrote: callmelou wrote: lotfotl wrote: Craig wrote: Biggest issue with the bond for me was too much authority too far out in the future.
In my opinion, any tax on your personal property is a sham and should be voted down. If they want to raise taxes let them do it in a way that won't threaten a persons ability to stay in their home. The only reason government keeps going after homeowners is they figure you'll be forced to pay up or lose your home.
I often come in contact with homeowners and renters who claim they are maxed out with monthy payments for 'essentials'...then I learn 'essentials' include high speed internet (what's wrong with dial up) and $80 cable TV package (what's wrong with an antenna for $40 and no monthy cable fee)...the point is the ability to pay more in tax should not be confused with the willingness to pay more tax.
Lou I will thank you to not presume to decide how I should dispose of my income.
You have not helped me earn it. You provide me nothing beyond a poster to talk to on the internet. You do not warm my bed nor my meals. You have no claim on my earnings.
I presume that is also true of: the military; the police; the fire department; and all other government agencies as well, unless you have a very large bed... Yet you are obligated to 'pay them' regardless of whether or not you'd prefer to spend your money (which technically isn't yours, it's the property of the government) on other things, such as Palin's upcoming book (which is on sale for $4.97 on Newsmax..and overpriced at that)...
Arroz con mangoes Lou. You were specifically addressing those who are complaining of their tax burdens and rather arrogantly presuming to determine for them what are and are not essentials.
By example Lou, as part of my job function I frequently remote into sites and resolve issues. "Dial Up", (Lord, is that still even available?), can not meet the performance specification of my connections.
Another point though that literally flew right off the screen, Good Lord Lou, would you please explain this concept of yours about money being government property? I can hardly address something in debate that I cannot conceive of.
|
Craig
Member
| Joined: | Sat Jan 21st, 2006 |
| Location: | Arizona USA |
| Posts: | 3785 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Nov 4th, 2009 08:54 pm |
|
Im not planning to give the big overweight government any more money.
|
callmelou
Member
| Joined: | Fri Aug 28th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 583 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Nov 4th, 2009 08:10 pm |
|
Craig wrote: callmelou wrote: lotfotl wrote: Craig wrote: Biggest issue with the bond for me was too much authority too far out in the future.
In my opinion, any tax on your personal property is a sham and should be voted down. If they want to raise taxes let them do it in a way that won't threaten a persons ability to stay in their home. The only reason government keeps going after homeowners is they figure you'll be forced to pay up or lose your home.
I often come in contact with homeowners and renters who claim they are maxed out with monthy payments for 'essentials'...then I learn 'essentials' include high speed internet (what's wrong with dial up) and $80 cable TV package (what's wrong with an antenna for $40 and no monthy cable fee)...the point is the ability to pay more in tax should not be confused with the willingness to pay more tax. Your right about that. That is typical liberal thinking. Hey if you have money to give for cable, it would be better to give it to the government. When the city comes back with a smaller more specific package with well defined goals i will support it. But forget about giving councils that are 15 years out authority to borrow money. Thats just stupid.
It's called "planning".
|
BigSurprize
Member
|
Posted: Wed Nov 4th, 2009 08:06 pm |
|
The bard wrote: callmelou wrote: lotfotl wrote: Craig wrote: Biggest issue with the bond for me was too much authority too far out in the future.
In my opinion, any tax on your personal property is a sham and should be voted down. If they want to raise taxes let them do it in a way that won't threaten a persons ability to stay in their home. The only reason government keeps going after homeowners is they figure you'll be forced to pay up or lose your home.
I often come in contact with homeowners and renters who claim they are maxed out with monthy payments for 'essentials'...then I learn 'essentials' include high speed internet (what's wrong with dial up) and $80 cable TV package (what's wrong with an antenna for $40 and no monthy cable fee)...the point is the ability to pay more in tax should not be confused with the willingness to pay more tax.
Lou I will thank you to not presume to decide how I should dispose of my income.
You have not helped me earn it. You provide me nothing beyond a poster to talk to on the internet. You do not warm my bed nor my meals. You have no claim on my earnings.
|
callmelou
Member
| Joined: | Fri Aug 28th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 583 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Nov 4th, 2009 08:05 pm |
|
The bard wrote: callmelou wrote: lotfotl wrote: Craig wrote: Biggest issue with the bond for me was too much authority too far out in the future.
In my opinion, any tax on your personal property is a sham and should be voted down. If they want to raise taxes let them do it in a way that won't threaten a persons ability to stay in their home. The only reason government keeps going after homeowners is they figure you'll be forced to pay up or lose your home.
I often come in contact with homeowners and renters who claim they are maxed out with monthy payments for 'essentials'...then I learn 'essentials' include high speed internet (what's wrong with dial up) and $80 cable TV package (what's wrong with an antenna for $40 and no monthy cable fee)...the point is the ability to pay more in tax should not be confused with the willingness to pay more tax.
Lou I will thank you to not presume to decide how I should dispose of my income.
You have not helped me earn it. You provide me nothing beyond a poster to talk to on the internet. You do not warm my bed nor my meals. You have no claim on my earnings.
I presume that is also true of: the military; the police; the fire department; and all other government agencies as well, unless you have a very large bed... Yet you are obligated to 'pay them' regardless of whether or not you'd prefer to spend your money (which technically isn't yours, it's the property of the government) on other things, such as Palin's upcoming book (which is on sale for $4.97 on Newsmax..and overpriced at that)...
|
The bard
Member
|
Posted: Wed Nov 4th, 2009 07:17 pm |
|
callmelou wrote: lotfotl wrote: Craig wrote: Biggest issue with the bond for me was too much authority too far out in the future.
In my opinion, any tax on your personal property is a sham and should be voted down. If they want to raise taxes let them do it in a way that won't threaten a persons ability to stay in their home. The only reason government keeps going after homeowners is they figure you'll be forced to pay up or lose your home.
I often come in contact with homeowners and renters who claim they are maxed out with monthy payments for 'essentials'...then I learn 'essentials' include high speed internet (what's wrong with dial up) and $80 cable TV package (what's wrong with an antenna for $40 and no monthy cable fee)...the point is the ability to pay more in tax should not be confused with the willingness to pay more tax.
Lou I will thank you to not presume to decide how I should dispose of my income.
You have not helped me earn it. You provide me nothing beyond a poster to talk to on the internet. You do not warm my bed nor my meals. You have no claim on my earnings.
|
lotfotl
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jul 1st, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 37 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Nov 4th, 2009 07:09 pm |
|
callmelou: the point is the ability to pay more in tax should not be confused with the willingness to pay more tax.
Thats absolutley correct, and I'm not willing to pay more so I'm not at all confused.
|
Craig
Member
| Joined: | Sat Jan 21st, 2006 |
| Location: | Arizona USA |
| Posts: | 3785 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Nov 4th, 2009 07:08 pm |
|
callmelou wrote: lotfotl wrote: Craig wrote: Biggest issue with the bond for me was too much authority too far out in the future.
In my opinion, any tax on your personal property is a sham and should be voted down. If they want to raise taxes let them do it in a way that won't threaten a persons ability to stay in their home. The only reason government keeps going after homeowners is they figure you'll be forced to pay up or lose your home.
I often come in contact with homeowners and renters who claim they are maxed out with monthy payments for 'essentials'...then I learn 'essentials' include high speed internet (what's wrong with dial up) and $80 cable TV package (what's wrong with an antenna for $40 and no monthy cable fee)...the point is the ability to pay more in tax should not be confused with the willingness to pay more tax. Your right about that. That is typical liberal thinking. Hey if you have money to give for cable, it would be better to give it to the government. When the city comes back with a smaller more specific package with well defined goals i will support it. But forget about giving councils that are 15 years out authority to borrow money. Thats just stupid.
|
callmelou
Member
| Joined: | Fri Aug 28th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 583 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Nov 4th, 2009 06:33 pm |
|
lotfotl wrote: Craig wrote: Biggest issue with the bond for me was too much authority too far out in the future.
In my opinion, any tax on your personal property is a sham and should be voted down. If they want to raise taxes let them do it in a way that won't threaten a persons ability to stay in their home. The only reason government keeps going after homeowners is they figure you'll be forced to pay up or lose your home.
I often come in contact with homeowners and renters who claim they are maxed out with monthy payments for 'essentials'...then I learn 'essentials' include high speed internet (what's wrong with dial up) and $80 cable TV package (what's wrong with an antenna for $40 and no monthy cable fee)...the point is the ability to pay more in tax should not be confused with the willingness to pay more tax.
|
lotfotl
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jul 1st, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 37 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Nov 4th, 2009 04:18 pm |
|
Craig wrote: Biggest issue with the bond for me was too much authority too far out in the future.
In my opinion, any tax on your personal property is a sham and should be voted down. If they want to raise taxes let them do it in a way that won't threaten a persons ability to stay in their home. The only reason government keeps going after homeowners is they figure you'll be forced to pay up or lose your home.
|
Craig
Member
| Joined: | Sat Jan 21st, 2006 |
| Location: | Arizona USA |
| Posts: | 3785 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Nov 4th, 2009 03:41 pm |
|
Biggest issue with the bond for me was too much authority too far out in the future.
|
The bard
Member
|
Posted: Wed Nov 4th, 2009 03:14 pm |
|
I mentioned to Lyn previously that he has to wait until we as a city can afford to engage these projects. It appears that after testing the waters, he is committed to doing exactly that.
|
cindisue_g
Member
| Joined: | Wed Feb 22nd, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2527 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Nov 4th, 2009 03:13 pm |
|
Ken W wrote: Ken Lynch and Cliff Elkins did a tremendous job in developing the GO bond plan. The general economic conditions , a leadership void and council mistrust were contributory to the bond defeat. In my opinion, many of the proposed projects are worthy of citizen support. I am convinced city officals are giving accurate assessments about lack of revenue to program actual needs. It seems that the council to be seated in January,2010 should consider a five year bond program based on real needs. This will need to be done with input from all seven councilors working together ( no Lone Ranger efforts). Voters are not stupid. A sensible bond program would probably garner support from citizen groups completely unaffilated with the council. In the meantime, the council must work to restore citizen confidence and make a concerted effort to improve relations with the press.
You are absolutely correct. I did not feel that it was a sensible program - too many ifs in my book.
|
cindisue_g
Member
| Joined: | Wed Feb 22nd, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2527 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Nov 4th, 2009 03:11 pm |
|
Razenkn wrote: Craig wrote: Razenkn wrote: Craig wrote: "Voters have clearly spoken," said Mayor Lyn Truitt. "Until residents are ready for transportation improvements, we're just going to wait."
Leaders dont wait...
So, what do you propose Craig? That was really the main reason I voted for it because we are going to regret not having the option down the road "so to speak". But, the other side of me figured it would go down because the last thing anyone wants in these tough economic times would be for a tax raise, so it was a pretty much a given it would go down in flames. But seriously, leaders's don't wait?? What does that mean?? That almost sounds personal.
Nothing personal, just a weak response from the mayor. I wouldnt go so far and call it a veiled threat exactly but when you come out and tell the city that since you voted it down, now im going to do nothing until you do, i just think that shows poor leadership. As far as what to do, hey you elected him not me. I would have rather him come out and say something to the effect that we were going to have to roll up our sleeves and work on alternatives. I hope hes not really going to just wait for the money.
I see where you are coming from but he's not the threatening type. I think it showed his disappointment because the reality is just that, reality. You don't make improvements without money and in an economy that is so weak, it may be quite some time before the revenues will match the needs. The citizens obviously do not want taxes to be raised so there are only so many pots from which to tap. The economy effects us all including the developers. But from what I know of the Mayor he is already moving on to plan B. That's what I like about him, he's always looking ahead so we'll see. I wouldn't cross his name off the list just yet.
Maybe he should have said that then, we are going to plan B more on that later instead of playing the victim. He came across with a very defeatist attitude, something I really don't like in an elected official. It is just like President Obama always blaming President Bush - it really doesn't work.
|
Craig
Member
| Joined: | Sat Jan 21st, 2006 |
| Location: | Arizona USA |
| Posts: | 3785 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Nov 4th, 2009 03:09 pm |
|
Razenkn wrote: Craig wrote: Razenkn wrote: Craig wrote: "Voters have clearly spoken," said Mayor Lyn Truitt. "Until residents are ready for transportation improvements, we're just going to wait."
Leaders dont wait...
So, what do you propose Craig? That was really the main reason I voted for it because we are going to regret not having the option down the road "so to speak". But, the other side of me figured it would go down because the last thing anyone wants in these tough economic times would be for a tax raise, so it was a pretty much a given it would go down in flames. But seriously, leaders's don't wait?? What does that mean?? That almost sounds personal.
Nothing personal, just a weak response from the mayor. I wouldnt go so far and call it a veiled threat exactly but when you come out and tell the city that since you voted it down, now im going to do nothing until you do, i just think that shows poor leadership. As far as what to do, hey you elected him not me. I would have rather him come out and say something to the effect that we were going to have to roll up our sleeves and work on alternatives. I hope hes not really going to just wait for the money.
I see where you are coming from but he's not the threatening type. I think it showed his disappointment because the reality is just that, reality. You don't make improvements without money and in an economy that is so weak, it may be quite some time before the revenues will match the needs. The citizens obviously do not want taxes to be raised so there are only so many pots from which to tap. The economy effects us all including the developers. But from what I know of the Mayor he is already moving on to plan B. That's what I like about him, he's always looking ahead so we'll see. I wouldn't cross his name off the list just yet.
If he has a plan B last night would have been the time to convey that... JMHO
|
Sunny Surprise
Member
|
Posted: Wed Nov 4th, 2009 03:05 pm |
|
Drama Queen...
I call it a reality check.
The people spoke clearly that we don't need any future bills. Lets spend the money we have wisely and quit trying to become Washington.
|
Ken W
Member
| Joined: | Sun Oct 25th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 12 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Nov 4th, 2009 02:55 pm |
|
| Ken Lynch and Cliff Elkins did a tremendous job in developing the GO bond plan. The general economic conditions , a leadership void and council mistrust were contributory to the bond defeat. In my opinion, many of the proposed projects are worthy of citizen support. I am convinced city officals are giving accurate assessments about lack of revenue to program actual needs. It seems that the council to be seated in January,2010 should consider a five year bond program based on real needs. This will need to be done with input from all seven councilors working together ( no Lone Ranger efforts). Voters are not stupid. A sensible bond program would probably garner support from citizen groups completely unaffilated with the council. In the meantime, the council must work to restore citizen confidence and make a concerted effort to improve relations with the press.
|
Razenkn
Member
| Joined: | Thu Jun 4th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1809 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Nov 4th, 2009 02:17 pm |
|
Craig wrote: Razenkn wrote: Craig wrote: "Voters have clearly spoken," said Mayor Lyn Truitt. "Until residents are ready for transportation improvements, we're just going to wait."
Leaders dont wait...
So, what do you propose Craig? That was really the main reason I voted for it because we are going to regret not having the option down the road "so to speak". But, the other side of me figured it would go down because the last thing anyone wants in these tough economic times would be for a tax raise, so it was a pretty much a given it would go down in flames. But seriously, leaders's don't wait?? What does that mean?? That almost sounds personal.
Nothing personal, just a weak response from the mayor. I wouldnt go so far and call it a veiled threat exactly but when you come out and tell the city that since you voted it down, now im going to do nothing until you do, i just think that shows poor leadership. As far as what to do, hey you elected him not me. I would have rather him come out and say something to the effect that we were going to have to roll up our sleeves and work on alternatives. I hope hes not really going to just wait for the money.
I see where you are coming from but he's not the threatening type. I think it showed his disappointment because the reality is just that, reality. You don't make improvements without money and in an economy that is so weak, it may be quite some time before the revenues will match the needs. The citizens obviously do not want taxes to be raised so there are only so many pots from which to tap. The economy effects us all including the developers. But from what I know of the Mayor he is already moving on to plan B. That's what I like about him, he's always looking ahead so we'll see. I wouldn't cross his name off the list just yet.
|
Surprise Photos
Member
| Joined: | Mon Mar 6th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 391 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Nov 4th, 2009 01:57 pm |
|
Communications Department Ken Lynch Communications Director 16000 N. Civic Center Plaza Surprise, Ariz. 85374 Direct: 623.222.1420 ken.lynch@surpriseaz.com
For Immediate Release
Surprise voters defeat General Obligation Bonds, General Plan update
Surprise AZ (November 3, 2009) Surprise voters said no to a proposed $184.9 million General Obligation Bond issuance Tuesday, and on the same ballot rejected the city's revised General Plan, according to unofficial results from the Maricopa County Elections Department.
Of 14,820 votes cast in the General Obligation Bond question, 72% (10,671) were "no" votes and 28% (4,149) were "yes" votes.
"We wanted to know the thoughts of our residents on bonds, which is why we moved the bond proposal to the ballot in July," said Surprise Mayor Lyn Truitt. "Now that residents have decided that this is not the right time to issue bonds, I know they will understand and be patient that some of our transportation and street repair issues will not be addressed as quickly as all of us would like."
Of the 14,682 votes cast in the General Plan 2030 question, 58.33% (8,564) were "no" votes and 41.67% (6,118) were "yes" votes.
"It's unfortunate that the plan did not receive voter support," said Community Development Director Jeff Mihelich. "We will conduct additional public outreach meetings over the next year, reminding residents that a General Plan does not raise taxes, but serves as a blueprint for responsible growth. "We will likely ask council and voters to consider this again in November 2010."
-30-
Last edited on Wed Nov 4th, 2009 01:59 pm by Surprise Photos
|
BigSurprize
Member
|
Posted: Wed Nov 4th, 2009 01:40 pm |
|
cindisue_g wrote: Craig wrote: Razenkn wrote: Craig wrote: "Voters have clearly spoken," said Mayor Lyn Truitt. "Until residents are ready for transportation improvements, we're just going to wait."
Leaders dont wait...
So, what do you propose Craig? That was really the main reason I voted for it because we are going to regret not having the option down the road "so to speak". But, the other side of me figured it would go down because the last thing anyone wants in these tough economic times would be for a tax raise, so it was a pretty much a given it would go down in flames. But seriously, leaders's don't wait?? What does that mean?? That almost sounds personal.
Nothing personal, just a weak response from the mayor. I wouldnt go so far and call it a veiled threat exactly but when you come out and tell the city that since you voted it down, now im going to do nothing until you do, i just think that shows poor leadership. As far as what to do, hey you elected him not me. I would have rather him come out and say something to the effect that we were going to have to roll up our sleeves and work on alternatives. I hope hes not really going to just wait for the money.
Craig, I agree. I think the response should have been something like - The people have spoken and they didn't want the bond, now it is time for the council, city employees and myself to make it work, because we will do whatever it takes to make this city the best. I don't want a Mayor that plays a victim, I want a leader.
Either he spoke more along those lines (and we didn't get the whole picture from the report)...or he should have been less reactive and more proactive without making promises he may not be able to keep, of course.
|
cindisue_g
Member
| Joined: | Wed Feb 22nd, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2527 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Nov 4th, 2009 01:09 pm |
|
Craig wrote: Razenkn wrote: Craig wrote: "Voters have clearly spoken," said Mayor Lyn Truitt. "Until residents are ready for transportation improvements, we're just going to wait."
Leaders dont wait...
So, what do you propose Craig? That was really the main reason I voted for it because we are going to regret not having the option down the road "so to speak". But, the other side of me figured it would go down because the last thing anyone wants in these tough economic times would be for a tax raise, so it was a pretty much a given it would go down in flames. But seriously, leaders's don't wait?? What does that mean?? That almost sounds personal.
Nothing personal, just a weak response from the mayor. I wouldnt go so far and call it a veiled threat exactly but when you come out and tell the city that since you voted it down, now im going to do nothing until you do, i just think that shows poor leadership. As far as what to do, hey you elected him not me. I would have rather him come out and say something to the effect that we were going to have to roll up our sleeves and work on alternatives. I hope hes not really going to just wait for the money.
Craig, I agree. I think the response should have been something like - The people have spoken and they didn't want the bond, now it is time for the council, city employees and myself to make it work, because we will do whatever it takes to make this city the best. I don't want a Mayor that plays a victim, I want a leader.
|
Craig
Member
| Joined: | Sat Jan 21st, 2006 |
| Location: | Arizona USA |
| Posts: | 3785 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Nov 4th, 2009 11:38 am |
|
Razenkn wrote: Craig wrote: "Voters have clearly spoken," said Mayor Lyn Truitt. "Until residents are ready for transportation improvements, we're just going to wait."
Leaders dont wait...
So, what do you propose Craig? That was really the main reason I voted for it because we are going to regret not having the option down the road "so to speak". But, the other side of me figured it would go down because the last thing anyone wants in these tough economic times would be for a tax raise, so it was a pretty much a given it would go down in flames. But seriously, leaders's don't wait?? What does that mean?? That almost sounds personal.
Nothing personal, just a weak response from the mayor. I wouldnt go so far and call it a veiled threat exactly but when you come out and tell the city that since you voted it down, now im going to do nothing until you do, i just think that shows poor leadership. As far as what to do, hey you elected him not me. I would have rather him come out and say something to the effect that we were going to have to roll up our sleeves and work on alternatives. I hope hes not really going to just wait for the money.
|
rvukanovich
Member
| Joined: | Tue Sep 29th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 81 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Nov 4th, 2009 05:36 am |
|
| One Councilman seeing me at city hall turning in my ballot said because he knew me. I voted against the bond proposal. My reply to him was, I would probably vote yes for every bond issue they brought forward if they are specific on what the money is to be used for, not a blank check to empty the till.
|
Razenkn
Member
| Joined: | Thu Jun 4th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1809 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Nov 4th, 2009 04:54 am |
|
Craig wrote: "Voters have clearly spoken," said Mayor Lyn Truitt. "Until residents are ready for transportation improvements, we're just going to wait."
Leaders dont wait...
So, what do you propose Craig? That was really the main reason I voted for it because we are going to regret not having the option down the road "so to speak". But, the other side of me figured it would go down because the last thing anyone wants in these tough economic times would be for a tax raise, so it was a pretty much a given it would go down in flames. But seriously, leaders's don't wait?? What does that mean?? That almost sounds personal.
|
Craig
Member
| Joined: | Sat Jan 21st, 2006 |
| Location: | Arizona USA |
| Posts: | 3785 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Nov 4th, 2009 04:37 am |
|
"Voters have clearly spoken," said Mayor Lyn Truitt. "Until residents are ready for transportation improvements, we're just going to wait."
Leaders dont wait...
|
Craig
Member
| Joined: | Sat Jan 21st, 2006 |
| Location: | Arizona USA |
| Posts: | 3785 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Nov 4th, 2009 03:51 am |
|
| http://www.azcentral.com/members/Blog/LilyShumLeung/66651
|
rvukanovich
Member
| Joined: | Tue Sep 29th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 81 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 23rd, 2009 09:35 pm |
|
In last nights meeting there was a reference to the progressive magazine put out in favor of the Go Bond, I found that not to be the case.
The City of Surprise make a good case to vote for the Go Bond's, what they don't say, is that the Council can change the program and do what ever they want.
|
Craig
Member
| Joined: | Sat Jan 21st, 2006 |
| Location: | Arizona USA |
| Posts: | 3785 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 19th, 2009 05:38 pm |
|
http://www.azcentral.com/members/Blog/LilyShumLeung/65388
|
Current time is 08:55 am | Page: 1 2 3 4   |
|
|
|