Constitutional Amendments on Ballot This Fall - Page 5 - Great Lakes 4x4. The largest offroad forum in the Midwest

Go Back   Great Lakes 4x4. The largest offroad forum in the Midwest > General 4x4 Stuff > Politics, Government, or Religion Chat
GL4x4 Live! GL4x4 Casino

Politics, Government, or Religion Chat Bring your flamesuit!

greatlakes4x4.com is the premier Great Lakes 4x4 Forum on the internet. Registered Users do not see the above ads.
Search
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old October 9th, 2012, 05:02 PM   #81
steveo
In the band!
 
Join Date: 03-30-07
Location: montana/wyoming
Posts: 20,293
iTrader: (6)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kerryann View Post
I am not a vegan but thanks
Close enough lol.
steveo is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old October 12th, 2012, 10:20 AM   #82
Brods
Senior Member
 
Join Date: 01-21-07
Location: Salem, Mi
Posts: 704
iTrader: (2)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DuffMan View Post
Amen to your thoughts on Prop 1. I also like 2/3 majority to raise taxes. I'm NO everywhere else.
What about #5? Sounds like a great idea and I was going to vote yes, but…

http://defendmidemocracy.com exposes a downside to the prop. Cliff notes: A small group (only 13 senators) could effectively block attempts to close tax loop holes or other tax changes which are beneficial to the people but hurt the special interests.
Quote:
Originally Posted by http://defendmidemocracy.com/
Corporations owned by a single Detroit billionaire, Matty Moroun, are spending millions of dollars trying to buy Proposal 5, an extreme constitutional amendment on the Nov. 6 statewide ballot. Why would a Detroit billionaire bankroll Proposal 5, also known as the two-thirds ballot question?
Everyone seems to be distorting the facts so what/who to believe?
Brods is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 12th, 2012, 10:36 AM   #83
kerryann
German cars are hot
 
kerryann's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: West Bloomfield
Posts: 11,446
iTrader: (3)
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brods View Post
What about #5? Sounds like a great idea and I was going to vote yes, but…

http://defendmidemocracy.com exposes a downside to the prop. Cliff notes: A small group (only 13 senators) could effectively block attempts to close tax loop holes or other tax changes which are beneficial to the people but hurt the special interests.

Everyone seems to be distorting the facts so what/who to believe?
My whole thought on the bridge is, if it makes enough money for the owner to sponsor a ballot proposal and do prime time advertising, it is probably a fabulous investment. If it wasn't going to be a huge moneymaker and cut into his obviously massive profits, why would he be putting up such a fight
kerryann is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 12th, 2012, 10:43 AM   #84
Brods
Senior Member
 
Join Date: 01-21-07
Location: Salem, Mi
Posts: 704
iTrader: (2)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

I think you missed the point. Manny is supposedly the one pushing prop 5 as well as prop 6.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DuffMan
But then, anything that benefits Manny Marroun has got to be a bad thing.
Brods is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 12th, 2012, 10:52 AM   #85
srlbotanical
Because I Said So...
 
srlbotanical's Avatar
 
Join Date: 06-09-07
Location: Saranac, MI
Posts: 819
iTrader: (17)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DuffMan View Post
With voting coming nearer, all of the ads (pro and con) inundating the airwaves for the MI ballot proposals are filled with fear-mongering and misdirection. I colored my opinions green.

Prop 1: Concerns Governor's ability to appoint and powers of Emergency Managers. This is in response to legal challenges to EM laws. Voting "for" allows this to occur.

If bankrupt/failed cities want our state tax dollars, we get say over how they spend it. since they've already proven they can't spend it wisely.

Prop 2: Makes collective bargaining a right per the state Constitution. Has nothing to do with providing firefighters/cops with necessary equipment or turning perverts loose in schools. Voting "for" says that MI cannot become a "right to work" state.

About 11% of MI workers are represented by unions. Why should we modify our state Constitution to provide constitutional defense of unions when their time is coming to an end. Right to work states have jobs and growth. I was just in AL and MS and things were booming - Mercedes, BMW, Airbus, Nissan, and Martin Marietta have opened/are opening huge new facilities and employing thousands. Why would they do business here, especially when our state Constitution defends unions? Doing this effectively kills any chance of manufacturing growth in MI.

Prop 3: Requires that 25% of all electricity in MI come from renewable sources by 2025, and that utilities cannot pass the costs of this onto customers. A misuse of the Constitution according to legal experts on both sides of the issue (i.e. make it a law if you want it, but don't embed it into the Constitution). Voting "for" says MI needs to use the state Constitution to enforce this law.

Why does all of the support for this come from outside MI? 94K jobs? More like a net loss of 10-12K jobs, per the Mackinac Center. Renewable energy costs more, period. If it was truly cheaper, utilities would be building them like crazy - without need for laws and incentives to do so. And placing it into the Constitution means we're stuck with it. An attempt by wind turbine makers and solar panel makers to sell more product.

Prop 4: Gives home health care providers collective bargaining rights, or more specifically reverses an action by the Governor to stop paying a portion of funding for people providing health care services in the home (like family members or home health aides - not RNs, Drs, and medical professionals) directly to the SEIU union for "representing" these people indirectly. That's as objective as I can be on this - it's blatnat highway robbery and does NOTHING to improve or affect patient care or quality of life (despite ad claims). Voting "for" this reinstates the stream of payments to the SEIU.

Paying SEIU $ Snyder took away from them. BAD IDEA.

Prop 5: Requires a 2/3 majority to approve a tax increase. Voting "for" supports this.

Sounds like a good idea.

Prop 6: Requires voter approval before government builds a bridge between Detroit and Canada. Voting "for" supports this.

I'm torn. The current bridge is hammered with NAFTA traffic, so it's like asking us to fund the more efficient movement of jobs out of MI and into Canada. But then, anything that benefits Manny Marroun has got to be a bad thing.
I'm voting NO on all of them.

1) Once a city in in this position, they need to have outside intervention.

2) Collective bargaining needs to stay out of the constitution.

3) I think 25% of energy being green is great, but it needs to be driven by economics not by the gov.

4) I'm not interested.

5) Sometimes taxes are a good thing. A 2/3 vote would make this an impossibility IMO.

6) This is 100% driven by the current bridge owners. I have no problem with building a new bridge, I think it makes sense for the long term.
srlbotanical is online now   Reply With Quote
Old October 12th, 2012, 10:57 AM   #86
RyeBread
Catch the wave
 
RyeBread's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-08-05
Location: Fenton
Posts: 7,959
iTrader: (2)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kickstand View Post
I know this is an older post. BUT....contract houses (or at least the ones that I have worked for and the recruiters I have worked with) do not ignore the value of benefits. I OFTEN will overpay a candidate if I can to help him cover the increased cost of contract benefits.

The person who didn't take into account benefits is most often the employee/HR of the hiring company.
this thread blew up

now, I'm the one replying to an "older post".

good to know either things have changed in general, or that there are some folks like you guys that look at the total compensation package.

I'm sorta stuck again. Know anyone looking for a data analyst, GIS/Spatial locations analyst, with a concentration in property values, tax compliance that has a total compensation package in the 6 figures range, with a generous vacation package, home office, and company car?

- actually it wouldn't take all that for me to leave, but one has to dream ;)


I just saw that Ryan Co, just signed a binding agreement to purchase Thomson-Reuter's Tax group... the pool of employers in that arena just shrank again.
RyeBread is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 12th, 2012, 11:02 AM   #87
jimhri
Senior Member
 
jimhri's Avatar
 
Join Date: 09-17-07
Location: it's Tuesday so it must be Belguim
Posts: 3,374
iTrader: (3)
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Default

[quote=srlbotanical;3185106]
1) Once a city in in this position, they need to have outside intervention. DET HAS HAD 20+YRS TO FIX THEIR PROBLEM AND HAVEN'T. THEY REQUIRE ASSISTANCE

2) Collective bargaining needs to stay out of the constitution. IF I NEED TO PROVIDE DAYCARE FOR A FAMILY MEMBER, WOULD I HAVE TO BE CERTIFIED BY THE STATE AND PAY DUES TO THE UNION?

3) I think 25% of energy being green is great, but it needs to be driven by economics not by the gov. ANYTHING GOV'T TOUCHES IS GOING TO COST US $$$
4) I'm not interested.

5) Sometimes taxes are a good thing. A 2/3 vote would make this an impossibility IMO.

6) This is 100% driven by the current bridge owners. I have no problem with building a new bridge, I think it makes sense for the long term.LET THE MARKET DECIDE AND IF MANNY MAKES ANOTHER $500m SO BE IT[LUCKY BASTARD][/quote]...
jimhri is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 12th, 2012, 12:36 PM   #88
brewmenn
Grumpy old man.
 
brewmenn's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: Inkster, MI
Posts: 10,579
iTrader: (9)
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by srlbotanical View Post
I'm voting NO on all of them.

1) Once a city in in this position, they need to have outside intervention.
There seems to be lots of confusion over this one. The law in question was already passed last year by the state legislature. This is asking if you want to keep it. Voting "yes" maintains the current law giving the emergency manager wide ranging powers, voting no repeals this law and would revert back to the previous law which does not allow for the emergency manger to have as much power.
brewmenn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 12th, 2012, 02:51 PM   #89
srlbotanical
Because I Said So...
 
srlbotanical's Avatar
 
Join Date: 06-09-07
Location: Saranac, MI
Posts: 819
iTrader: (17)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by brewmenn View Post
There seems to be lots of confusion over this one. The law in question was already passed last year by the state legislature. This is asking if you want to keep it. Voting "yes" maintains the current law giving the emergency manager wide ranging powers, voting no repeals this law and would revert back to the previous law which does not allow for the emergency manger to have as much power.
THANK YOU!

I had that wrong. #1 will have a YES vote from me.
srlbotanical is online now   Reply With Quote
Old October 12th, 2012, 03:46 PM   #90
DuffMan
Your Message Here
 
DuffMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: The Ile of Grosse
Posts: 5,845
iTrader: (11)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
http://defendmidemocracy.com exposes a downside to the prop. Cliff notes: A small group (only 13 senators) could effectively block attempts to close tax loop holes or other tax changes which are beneficial to the people but hurt the special interests.
Excellent point.

I stand corrected.

NO on everything but 1.
__________________
This is the Pub. Leave common sense at the door.
DuffMan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 12th, 2012, 04:20 PM   #91
kickstand
sHaMoNe!
 
kickstand's Avatar
 
Join Date: 09-20-06
Location: fenton
Posts: 31,968
iTrader: (46)
Mentioned: 41 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DuffMan View Post
Excellent point.

I stand corrected.

NO on everything but 1.
I'll need to re-read this thread again, to make sure I understand the wording in these proposals, however, I believe I am Yes on 1. No on everything else, but can #6 be further explained?

Thanks
kickstand is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 12th, 2012, 09:06 PM   #92
kerryann
German cars are hot
 
kerryann's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: West Bloomfield
Posts: 11,446
iTrader: (3)
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DuffMan View Post
Excellent point.

I stand corrected.

NO on everything but 1.
You should have listened to me.. I am semi smart..
kerryann is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 12th, 2012, 09:32 PM   #93
DuffMan
Your Message Here
 
DuffMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: The Ile of Grosse
Posts: 5,845
iTrader: (11)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kerryann View Post
You should have listened to me.. I am semi smart..
I've never suggested otherwise... ;)
__________________
This is the Pub. Leave common sense at the door.
DuffMan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 12th, 2012, 09:35 PM   #94
DuffMan
Your Message Here
 
DuffMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: The Ile of Grosse
Posts: 5,845
iTrader: (11)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kickstand View Post
I'll need to re-read this thread again, to make sure I understand the wording in these proposals, however, I believe I am Yes on 1. No on everything else, but can #6 be further explained?

Thanks
"Yes" means that the state Constitution is amended to read that any bridge to Canada has to be on the ballot.
__________________
This is the Pub. Leave common sense at the door.
DuffMan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 13th, 2012, 05:15 PM   #95
SS
Doing stuff...and things.
 
SS's Avatar
 
Join Date: 12-12-05
Location: 48309
Posts: 12,142
iTrader: (14)
Mentioned: 53 Post(s)
Default

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012...-intimidation/

This could make the SEIU amendment a moot point. Nothing like a RICO lawsuit to put a crimp in their style. Racketeering, extortion, etc.
__________________
-Jer

SS is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply
Great Lakes 4x4. The largest offroad forum in the Midwest > General 4x4 Stuff > Politics, Government, or Religion Chat

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:35 AM.


Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd. Runs best on HiVelocity Hosting.
Page generated in 0.36453 seconds with 66 queries