Re: Is anyone going to vote yes on Proposal 1?

by **DWags** 2015-05-06, 00:45

Cameron wrote:
DWags wrote:

Sometimes I'm selfish. I don't know how else to explain that. Wish I wasn't but sometimes I am.

How does paying more sales tax benefit you?

Justify your stupid vote.

Do I have to? Seriously. this is a no win. My side lost. You've won and you seem angry.

by **Cameron** 2015-05-06, 00:54

DWags wrote:
Cameron wrote:

How does paying more sales tax benefit you?

Justify your stupid vote.

Do I have to? Seriously. this is a no win. My side lost. You've won and you seem angry.

If my side won, then I have no reason to be angry. I'm just curious what possible reason you could have for voting yes.

PS: It should be a no win, voting yes was stupid.

by **xsanguine** 2015-05-06, 01:00

Robert J Sakimano wrote:
xsanguine wrote:

Initially I wanted to disagree with this just due to my own personal philosophy.

But it really does make the most sense. I'm not a big fan of taxes but if you're going to tax... try as hard as possible to put the tax where it'll affect those using them the most.

It doesn't make sense to raise Bob's taxes (or yours if you're referring to biking/walking as being off the roads) when Bob is doing the earth and his health some good by riding a bike to work.

while I agree with this to an extent, I'm very much an "it takes a village" kind of guy.

I am too, Bob. I'm just not a "force everyone to participate through the threat of violence in order to fund someone else's idea" kind of guy.

by **DWags** 2015-05-06, 06:23

Cameron wrote:
DWags wrote:

Do I have to? Seriously. this is a no win. My side lost. You've won and you seem angry.

If my side won, then I have no reason to be angry. I'm just curious what possible reason you could have for voting yes.

PS: It should be a no win, voting yes was stupid.

Thanks. I've noted your feelings on it

by **Robert J Sakimano** 2015-05-06, 08:02

I was 99.9% certain that it wouldn't pass, but I figured it'd be more along the lines of 65/35... an 80/20 vote shows you how truly bad this proposal was, the language used and the general distrust the public has of politicians.

by **Travis of the Cosmos** 2015-05-06, 08:07

Cameron wrote:
DWags wrote:

Sometimes I'm selfish. I don't know how else to explain that. Wish I wasn't but sometimes I am.

How does paying more sales tax benefit you?

Justify your stupid vote.

Hey genius drunk guy.... Selfish reasons = he works in roads or something else that stands to benefit from increased spending on roads. $500 in sales tax < thousands in increased business.

by **Robert J Sakimano** 2015-05-06, 08:11

Dwags is so selfish, he doesn't feel the need to explain the reasons why he's selfish.. Is anyone going to vote yes on Proposal 1? - Page 3 502811600

leave the dude alone!!

#ISupportDwags

by Rodeo Burger 2015-05-06, 08:50

Construction companies and unions spent $9 million to try and get this abomination passed.

Opponents of Prop 1 spent $200,000 to defeat the bill.

I'd like to know how many pot holes $9.2 million can fill. Start on my street, and go from there.

by **Robert J Sakimano** 2015-05-06, 08:55

Rodeo Burger wrote:Construction companies and unions spent $9 million to try and get this abomination passed.

Opponents of Prop 1 spent $200,000 to defeat the bill.

I'd like to know how many pot holes $9.2 million can fill. Start on my street, and go from there.

the alliances that were created through this process was weird..

I want my taxes raised.. I just want the politicians to have the guts to raise them. I don't want them putting their hard decisions to public referendum just so they can run on their "I never once raised your taxes" nonsense come election day..

so it was bizarre - I was aligned with the knuckle-draggin' tea baggers with my "no" vote..

by **InTenSity** 2015-05-06, 09:10

Robert J Sakimano wrote:
Rodeo Burger wrote:Construction companies and unions spent $9 million to try and get this abomination passed.

Opponents of Prop 1 spent $200,000 to defeat the bill.

I'd like to know how many pot holes $9.2 million can fill. Start on my street, and go from there.
the alliances that were created through this process was weird..

I want my taxes raised.. I just want the politicians to have the guts to raise them. I don't want them putting their hard decisions to public referendum just so they can run on their "I never once raised your taxes" nonsense come election day..

so it was bizarre - I was aligned with the knuckle-draggin' tea baggers with my "no" vote..

I don't live in MI, but I saw a few people on FB, mostly relatives who are pretty big conservatives, upset that the politicians were trying to pass tax hikes off, instead of doing it themselves. It was kind of weird.

by **Robert J Sakimano** 2015-05-06, 09:22

InTenSity wrote:
Robert J Sakimano wrote:the alliances that were created through this process was weird..

I want my taxes raised.. I just want the politicians to have the guts to raise them. I don't want them putting their hard decisions to public referendum just so they can run on their "I never once raised your taxes" nonsense come election day..

so it was bizarre - I was aligned with the knuckle-draggin' tea baggers with my "no" vote..
I don't live in MI, but I saw a few people on FB, mostly relatives who are pretty big conservatives, upset that the politicians were trying to pass tax hikes off, instead of doing it themselves. It was kind of weird.

yep - that's the exact way I was looking at it. I don't appreciate a politician going through the window in the dark of night trying to raise taxes. Do it, do it honorably and from an honest place, own up to it and be willing to be held accountable for doing it.

by **Other Teams Pursuing That** 2015-05-06, 09:23

Wait, so do we want a say in our taxes or not? The posts above confuse me.

by **Floyd Robertson** 2015-05-06, 09:34

I don't mind that a public vote was called for and a special election was held, but they still screwed the pooch.

There should have been two proposals. Something along the lines of:

1) The proposal in the language that was voted on yesterday
2) An alternate proposal that clearly said 100% of the increase was going toward infrastructure (roads, bridges, water).

Let people vote on only one of the two, or reject both. I bet #2 would have passed by a good margin.

by **Robert J Sakimano** 2015-05-06, 09:36

Other Teams Pursuing That wrote:Wait, so do we want a say in our taxes or not? The posts above confuse me.

yes - and it's the job of our elected officials to represent us. Unless they are cowards.

by **DWags** 2015-05-06, 10:00

Robert J Sakimano wrote:
Other Teams Pursuing That wrote:Wait, so do we want a say in our taxes or not? The posts above confuse me.
yes - and it's the job of our elected officials to represent us. Unless they are cowards.

So, do we want or, don't want, them to give us options on being taxed or not?

by **InTenSity** 2015-05-06, 10:04

DWags wrote:
Robert J Sakimano wrote:yes - and it's the job of our elected officials to represent us. Unless they are cowards.

So, do we want or, don't want, them to give us options on being taxed or not?

I thought when we voted in officials, we knowingly gave them the power to introduce or take away taxes. Maybe I misunderstand one of their responsibilities. What they should do is allow the public to decide if they get raises or not.

by **Robert J Sakimano** 2015-05-06, 10:06

DWags wrote:
Robert J Sakimano wrote:yes - and it's the job of our elected officials to represent us. Unless they are cowards.

So, do we want or, don't want, them to give us options on being taxed or not?

I feel like we have that option on election day.

by **Robert J Sakimano** 2015-05-06, 10:09

InTenSity wrote:
DWags wrote:

So, do we want or, don't want, them to give us options on being taxed or not?

I thought when we voted in officials, we knowingly gave them the power to introduce or take away taxes. Maybe I misunderstand one of their responsibilities. What they should do is allow the public to decide if they get raises or not.

they're cowards..

the knuckle-draggers have ran the state (and country, to an extent) into the ground with their "anti-tax" mantra.. now, suddenly, they realize that this thought process has backed them into a corner and instead of being brave enough to admit that revenue needs to be raised to maintain basic infrastructure, they attempt to shift their responsibility to the taxpayers.

by **The_Dude** 2015-05-06, 11:06

Bob, I know you like to repeat talking point over and over and over again, but your entire shtick of knuckle dragging right wing politicians shifting responsibility to the citizens in MI is ignorance at it's finest.

"49 states have a law in place that allows citizens to vote on proposed constitutional amendments offered by the state legislature. The exception is Delaware, where the legislature alone acts on constitutional amendments."

http://ballotpedia.org/Legislatively-referred_constitutional_amendment

by **Robert J Sakimano** 2015-05-06, 11:08

The_Dude wrote:Bob, I know you like to repeat talking point over and over and over again, but your entire shtick of knuckle dragging right wing politicians shifting responsibility to the citizens in MI is ignorance at it's finest.

"49 states have a law in place that allows citizens to vote on proposed constitutional amendments offered by the state legislature. The exception is Delaware, where the legislature alone acts on constitutional amendments."

http://ballotpedia.org/Legislatively-referred_constitutional_amendment

I've never said that they can't do it.. a ballot initiative to amend the constitution.

I'm simply saying that it's a method for them (thankfully, a failed one) to have taxes raised while somehow being absolved of any involvement and resistant to any repercussions. They tried, they failed.

by **Watch Out Pylon!** 2015-05-06, 11:08

The_Dude wrote:Bob, I know you like to repeat talking point over and over and over again, but your entire shtick of knuckle dragging right wing politicians shifting responsibility to the citizens in MI is ignorance at it's finest.

"49 states have a law in place that allows citizens to vote on proposed constitutional amendments offered by the state legislature. The exception is Delaware, where the legislature alone acts on constitutional amendments."

http://ballotpedia.org/Legislatively-referred_constitutional_amendment

Someone is Is anyone going to vote yes on Proposal 1? - Page 3 1896033241

.

by **DWags** 2015-05-06, 11:09

I don't know about you guys, but the more options I get from those guys in Lansing the better I feel. The more direct this democracy becomes the better it is.

In this case the vast majority told them no way. Their voice was heard. Had the legislature just given it to us, 80% of the people would be pissed off today.

by **Robert J Sakimano** 2015-05-06, 11:11

DWags wrote:I don't know about you guys, but the more options I get from those guys in Lansing the better I feel. The more direct this democracy becomes the better it is.

In this case the vast majority told them no way. Their voice was heard. Had the legislature just given it to us, 80% of the people would be pissed off today.

and could respond accordingly on election day..

unless, of course, we're too preoccupied with more important stuff like Dancing With the Stars, American Idol, a football game, etc.

by **DWags** 2015-05-06, 11:35

Robert J Sakimano wrote:
DWags wrote:I don't know about you guys, but the more options I get from those guys in Lansing the better I feel. The more direct this democracy becomes the better it is.

In this case the vast majority told them no way. Their voice was heard. Had the legislature just given it to us, 80% of the people would be pissed off today.
and could respond accordingly on election day..

unless, of course, we're too preoccupied with more important stuff like Dancing With the Stars, American Idol, a football game, etc.

I think it's a win win for the 80%. They got their wish, and now, at election time, they get to vote these guys out of office because they believe these elected officials are cowards.

Term limits have fucked us. We have amateurs who dont' know what they're doing, have little background into how to get it done, have no historical basis as to why we need things done and how votes like this don't work, and don't give a shit if they get it wrong. Term limits are the antithesis of a sound democracy. And they end up giving you a bunch of dumb fucks.

by **Robert J Sakimano** 2015-05-06, 11:38

DWags wrote:
Robert J Sakimano wrote:and could respond accordingly on election day..

unless, of course, we're too preoccupied with more important stuff like Dancing With the Stars, American Idol, a football game, etc.

I think it's a win win for the 80%. They got their wish, and now, at election time, they get to vote these guys out of office because they're cowards.

Term limits have fucked us. We have amateurs who dont' know what they're doing, have little background into how to get it done, have no historical basis as to why we need things done and how votes like this don't work, and don't give a shit if they get it wrong. Term limits are the antithesis of a sound democracy. And they end up giving you a bunch of dumb fucks.

correct.

Not at all a fan of term limits. Not only is it a direct assault on the idea of democracy, but its sheer existence makes it impossible for representatives to form long term (hopefully) bipartisan alliances, partnerships, relationships with colleagues to do what is best for their collective constituents. Instead, they spend their short time in the legislature building their resume to a target audience and looking for their next job.

by **The_Dude** 2015-05-06, 11:41

Watch Out Pylon! wrote:
The_Dude wrote:Bob, I know you like to repeat talking point over and over and over again, but your entire shtick of knuckle dragging right wing politicians shifting responsibility to the citizens in MI is ignorance at it's finest.

"49 states have a law in place that allows citizens to vote on proposed constitutional amendments offered by the state legislature. The exception is Delaware, where the legislature alone acts on constitutional amendments."

http://ballotpedia.org/Legislatively-referred_constitutional_amendment

Someone is .

Who, you?

I voted no on this, how am I mad?

I just like to educate people whenever I can about how our judicial and legislative process work. Lots of people cue up faux outrage over falsehoods.

by **Other Teams Pursuing That** 2015-05-06, 11:53

The_Dude wrote:
Watch Out Pylon! wrote:

Someone is .

Who, you?

I voted no on this, how am I mad?

I just like to educate people whenever I can about how our judicial and legislative process work. Lots of people cue up faux outrage over falsehoods.

Is there ANYTHING people are allowed to get worked up about? Or should we all just be mindless robots who follow the orders of the government?

by **Travis of the Cosmos** 2015-05-06, 12:22

Other Teams Pursuing That wrote:
The_Dude wrote:

Who, you?

I voted no on this, how am I mad?

I just like to educate people whenever I can about how our judicial and legislative process work. Lots of people cue up faux outrage over falsehoods.

Is there ANYTHING people are allowed to get worked up about? Or should we all just be mindless robots who follow the orders of the government?

Liberals. You can get mad about them as much as you please.

by **The_Dude** 2015-05-06, 12:25

Other Teams Pursuing That wrote:
The_Dude wrote:

Who, you?

I voted no on this, how am I mad?

I just like to educate people whenever I can about how our judicial and legislative process work. Lots of people cue up faux outrage over falsehoods.

Is there ANYTHING people are allowed to get worked up about? Or should we all just be mindless robots who follow the orders of the government?

Of course there are things you can get worked about. Just make sure you aren't getting worked up over myths like hands up don't shoot.

Know what you are talking about when you get outraged is all I ask, yes?

It shouldn't be that difficult this day and age but unfortunately people just look for biased sources to affirm their own narrative even when it's a false narrative like almost all of Bob's posts if you want an example.

by **The_Dude** 2015-05-06, 12:30

Robert J Sakimano wrote:
DWags wrote:

I think it's a win win for the 80%. They got their wish, and now, at election time, they get to vote these guys out of office because they're cowards.

Term limits have fucked us. We have amateurs who dont' know what they're doing, have little background into how to get it done, have no historical basis as to why we need things done and how votes like this don't work, and don't give a shit if they get it wrong. Term limits are the antithesis of a sound democracy. And they end up giving you a bunch of dumb fucks.
correct.

Not at all a fan of term limits. Not only is it a direct assault on the idea of democracy, but its sheer existence makes it impossible for representatives to form long term (hopefully) bipartisan alliances, partnerships, relationships with colleagues to do what is best for their collective constituents. Instead, they spend their short time in the legislature building their resume to a target audience and looking for their next job.

Huh?

We should have term limits for every single political office on this country, starting with Congress.

Our government was made to have civilians govern, then go back to normal life after they serve. Remember the phrase government for the people by the people?

Are you seriously going to sit here and tell me someone like Hilary Clinton isn't part of a elite, incredibly out of touch political class that has made herself insanely rich off of being a politician? And you think someone like that is going to watch out and fight for the average Joe?

She said she hasn't driven a car in 20 years but she can relate to the average persons' problems...riiiight. Rolling Eyes

by **InTenSity** 2015-05-06, 12:31

The_Dude wrote:
Other Teams Pursuing That wrote:

Is there ANYTHING people are allowed to get worked up about? Or should we all just be mindless robots who follow the orders of the government?

Of course there are things you can get worked about. Just make sure you aren't getting worked up over myths like hands up don't shoot.

Know what you are talking about when you get outraged is all I ask, yes?

It shouldn't be that difficult this day and age but unfortunately people just look for biased sources to affirm their own narrative even when it's a false narrative like almost all of Bob's posts if you want an example.

Make sure to get your talking points from White Knights of Valor, and Rush.

by **The_Dude** 2015-05-06, 12:32

Robert J Sakimano wrote:
The_Dude wrote:Bob, I know you like to repeat talking point over and over and over again, but your entire shtick of knuckle dragging right wing politicians shifting responsibility to the citizens in MI is ignorance at it's finest.

"49 states have a law in place that allows citizens to vote on proposed constitutional amendments offered by the state legislature. The exception is Delaware, where the legislature alone acts on constitutional amendments."

http://ballotpedia.org/Legislatively-referred_constitutional_amendment
I've never said that they can't do it.. a ballot initiative to amend the constitution.

I'm simply saying that it's a method for them (thankfully, a failed one) to have taxes raised while somehow being absolved of any involvement and resistant to any repercussions. They tried, they failed.

Well we should hold our politicians accountable and vote them out then.

But we have pathetic voter turnout in this country and most people just check the box of the name they recognize of the incumbent.

by **Travis of the Cosmos** 2015-05-06, 12:37

The_Dude wrote:
Robert J Sakimano wrote:correct.

Not at all a fan of term limits. Not only is it a direct assault on the idea of democracy, but its sheer existence makes it impossible for representatives to form long term (hopefully) bipartisan alliances, partnerships, relationships with colleagues to do what is best for their collective constituents. Instead, they spend their short time in the legislature building their resume to a target audience and looking for their next job.

Huh?

We should have term limits for every single political office on this country, starting with Congress.

Our government was made to have civilians govern, then go back to normal life after they serve. Remember the phrase government for the people by the people?

Are you seriously going to sit here and tell me someone like Hilary Clinton isn't part of a elite, incredibly out of touch political class that has made herself insanely rich off of being a politician? And you think someone like that is going to watch out and fight for the average Joe?

She said she hasn't driven a car in 20 years but she can relate to the average persons' problems...riiiight.

I assume you will say that you do, no matter what the actual answer is, but do you know what the term limits are for a state representative in Michigan? 3 2 year terms. 6 years. That's barely enough time to figure out where you like to go to lunch during the day and which direction you need to go in to find Omars. I'm fine with term limits, but it has to be longer than 6 years.

by **Other Teams Pursuing That** 2015-05-06, 12:56

The_Dude wrote:
Robert J Sakimano wrote:correct.

Not at all a fan of term limits. Not only is it a direct assault on the idea of democracy, but its sheer existence makes it impossible for representatives to form long term (hopefully) bipartisan alliances, partnerships, relationships with colleagues to do what is best for their collective constituents. Instead, they spend their short time in the legislature building their resume to a target audience and looking for their next job.

Our government was made to have civilians govern, then go back to normal life after they serve. Remember the phrase government for the people by the people?

THAT is the funniest shit I have heard all day. What a crock of shit that is now.

by **Watch Out Pylon!** 2015-05-06, 13:08

The_Dude wrote:
Robert J Sakimano wrote:correct.

Not at all a fan of term limits. Not only is it a direct assault on the idea of democracy, but its sheer existence makes it impossible for representatives to form long term (hopefully) bipartisan alliances, partnerships, relationships with colleagues to do what is best for their collective constituents. Instead, they spend their short time in the legislature building their resume to a target audience and looking for their next job.

Huh?

We should have term limits for every single political office on this country, starting with Congress.

Our government was made to have civilians govern, then go back to normal life after they serve. Remember the phrase government for the people by the people?

Are you seriously going to sit here and tell me someone like Hilary Clinton isn't part of a elite, incredibly out of touch political class that has made herself insanely rich off of being a politician? And you think someone like that is going to watch out and fight for the average Joe?

She said she hasn't driven a car in 20 years but she can relate to the average persons' problems...riiiight.

Is anyone going to vote yes on Proposal 1? - Page 3 Sheep-redorbit

by **DWags** 2015-05-06, 13:53

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:
The_Dude wrote:

Huh?

We should have term limits for every single political office on this country, starting with Congress.

Our government was made to have civilians govern, then go back to normal life after they serve. Remember the phrase government for the people by the people?

Are you seriously going to sit here and tell me someone like Hilary Clinton isn't part of a elite, incredibly out of touch political class that has made herself insanely rich off of being a politician? And you think someone like that is going to watch out and fight for the average Joe?

She said she hasn't driven a car in 20 years but she can relate to the average persons' problems...riiiight.

I assume you will say that you do, no matter what the actual answer is, but do you know what the term limits are for a state representative in Michigan? 3 2 year terms. 6 years. That's barely enough time to figure out where you like to go to lunch during the day and which direction you need to go in to find Omars. I'm fine with term limits, but it has to be longer than 6 years.

Until recently I believe that 6 years in our legislature got you abut a 25-35 K pension with lifetime health until medicare kicked in. Nice 6 years. I do think they finally took some of that away. Too lazy to research it.

by Guest 2015-05-06, 14:23

DWags wrote:
Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

I assume you will say that you do, no matter what the actual answer is, but do you know what the term limits are for a state representative in Michigan? 3 2 year terms. 6 years. That's barely enough time to figure out where you like to go to lunch during the day and which direction you need to go in to find Omars. I'm fine with term limits, but it has to be longer than 6 years.

Until recently I believe that 6 years in our legislature got you abut a 25-35 K pension with lifetime health until medicare kicked in. Nice 6 years. I do think they finally took some of that away. Too lazy to research it.

I know back in the old days it was 5 years to lifetime health care. I had an employee run and get elected to the MiHouse and that was one of his big motivators.

by **Robert J Sakimano** 2015-05-06, 14:48

The_Dude wrote:
Robert J Sakimano wrote:correct.

Not at all a fan of term limits. Not only is it a direct assault on the idea of democracy, but its sheer existence makes it impossible for representatives to form long term (hopefully) bipartisan alliances, partnerships, relationships with colleagues to do what is best for their collective constituents. Instead, they spend their short time in the legislature building their resume to a target audience and looking for their next job.

Huh?

We should have term limits for every single political office on this country, starting with Congress.

Our government was made to have civilians govern, then go back to normal life after they serve. Remember the phrase government for the people by the people?

Are you seriously going to sit here and tell me someone like Hilary Clinton isn't part of a elite, incredibly out of touch political class that has made herself insanely rich off of being a politician? And you think someone like that is going to watch out and fight for the average Joe?

She said she hasn't driven a car in 20 years but she can relate to the average persons' problems...riiiight.

I appreciate your attempt to insert that pathetic She Devil, Hillary Clinton, into your non-biased assertion but she hasn't held elected office since January of 2009. So if you're going to find some America-hatin' liberal to promote your argument of how evil elections are, you should try a little harder to find someone who has actually held elected office in the last 6-7 years.

oh, and Ted Kennedy died in 2009, so you probably should use him as an example, either.

by Sponsored content